Skip to content

Gidney v. Blake

C. Gidney against Blake

Gidney v. Blake, 11 Johns. 54 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1814)

Court: New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided: January 15, 1814
Citations: 11 Johns. 54

Cited by 11

Headnotes

Vlwider stated certain' aLa GUrf ando* ceming the and^oTmd"’ concerning c. one of the children of G. tiffin the suit, children' 7are thieves, and i itailwasTeheid charge*™ - sufficiently sígnate the of*’the achiitcndecfhy b" if one count is good, it is sufficient, on a gewhole decíaWhere a de-

Summary

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Orange county. Gidney brought an action of slander against Blake in ^ie court below. The declaration contained several counts; ^ie ^rst count stated that the plaintiff was the infant son and one of the children of Daniel Gidney, by whom he prosecuted, &c. and aíter tiie usual averments, that in a certain discourse which the defendant had with the said Daniel, of and concerning the 0 children of the said Darnel, and of and concerning the said Charles, the plaintiff, &c. the defendant maliciously spolce and Polished, &c. the following words: “ your children” (meaning, &c.) <c are thieves, and I” (meaning the defendant) « can prove it.” There were several other counts, one of which stated the words to be “ his children” (meaning the children of the said Daniel) “ are thieves, and I can prove it.” The other counts, in the innuendoes, stated the words as spoken of the plaintiff among the children of the said Daniel. There was a general demurrer to the declaration and joinder, on which the court below gave judgment for the defendant.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The charge is not vague or indefinite. The words “ your children,” “ his children,” apply to and embrace all the children of Daniel Gidney, with whom the defendant was conversing. The case of Foxcraft v. Lacy (Hob. 89.) is analogous, as to the effect and application of such expressions. In that case, it appears that a suit was pending against the plaintiff and 16 other persons, and a discourse being had concerning the suit, the defendant said these defendants helped to murder H. F., and it was adjudged that each of the 17 defendants was entitled to his separate action of slander. It might have been urged, as well in that case, as in this, that the words did not necessarily mean the plaintiff. In this case, the first count contains a colloquium concerning the plaintiff in particular, as well as the other children of Daniel Gidney, and the colloquium conclusively points the words, and designates the plaintiff as one of the children intended. A colloquium is sufficient to give application to words still more indefinite, such as one of the servants of I. S. is a thief; (4 Co. 17. b.) and if one count be good, it is sufficient on general demurrer to the whole declaration. (3 Caines' Rep. 89.)

The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

N. B. In the case of Gidney v. Cook, on the same pleadings, there was the same judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Ryckman v. Delavan25 Wend. 185 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1840)
Smart v. Blanchard42 N.H. 137 (1860)
Kenworthy v. Journal Co.93 S.W. 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906) · Dissent
Van Ingen v. Mail & Express Pub. Co.35 N.Y.S. 838 (1895)
Maybee v. Fisk42 Barb. 326 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1864)
Byers v. Martin2 Colo. 605 (1875)

Most recent

Rivers v. New York Evening Journal Publishing Co.120 A.D. 574 (1907)
Kenworthy v. Journal Co.93 S.W. 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906) · Dissent
Van Ingen v. Mail & Express Pub. Co.35 N.Y.S. 838 (1895)
Finnegan v. Detroit Free Press Co.44 N.W. 585 (Mich. 1889)
Crane v. O'Reilly11 N.Y. St. Rep. 277 (1887)
Byers v. Martin2 Colo. 605 (1875)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.