Petrie v. Rose

it jg incompetent to a defendant in an action of slander to give evidence, in mitigation of damages, of facts and circumstances which induced him to suppose the charge true at the time it was made, if such facts and circumstances tend to prove the charge, or form a link in the chain of circumstances to establish a justification, even though he expressly disavows a justification. In an action of slander against a husband and wife for words spoken by the wife, it is not competent for the defendant to prove that circumstances relating to the plaintiff’s conduct were communicated to the husband before the slanderous words were uttered. ( When, in an action of slander, the defendant’s evidence casts an imputation on the character of the plaintiff for honesty, it may be rebutted by testimony as to his general good character.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Perry county. John G. Rose against William Petrie and Sarah his wife. This was an action of slander for the following words spoken by the wife to Jacob Richstein, “ because you keep such a bad man there, your brother-in-law John G. Rose; I believe he is a robber and a murderer, for any man that will rob would murder as soon as not.” The defendants pleaded not guilty. After the plaintiff had given evidence of the speaking of the words as laid in the declaration, the defendants offered to prove that Rose had just come from Philadelphia to Richstein’s; that he came as far as Harrisburg in company with two men who were afterwards convicted of larceny and robbery, and who had with them at Harrisburg a large number of false keys and implements for robbing. That Rose came to Richstein’s under circumstances creating a strong suspicion of his having been concerned with those men. That his trunk was very heavy when it was seen at Richstein’s, and the constable was refused leave to search it. He brought constable Witzel there, and then the trunk was open and empty. That reports of Rose’s guilt, or supposed guilt, became current in the neighbourhood, and these facts were talked of. That different persons asked Rose whether he was the robber, and he answered that he was. These reports were heard by Mrs Petrie, and anything she said relative to Rose was of her belief founded on these facts and reports, and elicited by the questions and conversation of the witness. This was objected to by the plaintiff undér the pleadings. Hepburn, (President).—The defendant may show that suspicions were entertained by others, and the currency in the country with which they were circulated by others, and their acknowledgment by plaintiff, and communicated to her, previous to uttering the words charged in the declaration, for the purpose of rebutting the malice, and to reduce the damages. But the evidence of particular facts, as stated in this offer, going to justify the belief of the truth of the charge, under the pleadings we think is not admissible. The offer is therefore to the above extent admitted, and the residue rejected. The defendant asked leave to add to his plea, “ with leave to show the cause and the occasion of the speaking,” which was admitted by the court, and the above offer again made and disposed of by the court as above stated. The defendants excepted. The defendant then offered to prove the declarations of the witness to Wm Petrie, the husband of Mrs Petrie; that he told him that Rose was charged with being concerned in the robbery, and was followed to be caught, and that a guard was placed around the house to watch him. This was objected to as incompetent evidence, and rejected by the court. After the defendants had given evidence tending to cast an imputation upon the character of the plaintiff, he offered the depositions of witnesses to prove that his-general character for honesty was good. This the defendants objected to, but the court overruled the objection, and the depositions were read. contended that the court erred in rejecting the evidence offered by the defendants to mitigate the damages, and cited 2 Bro. 89; 3 Yeates 508 ; 1 Binn. 85; 2 Whart. 313; 4 Watts 350; and that depositions as to the character of the plaintiff were inadmissible. 4 Raiole 296; 21 Eng. Com. L. 246; 1 Wash. C. C. 144; 3 ih. 246. as to the first point, cited 2 Stark Ev. 470; 4 Watts 339; 4 Rawle 297; 14 Johns. 233; 8 Cowen 214; 3 Wend. 395; 13 Wend. 9. The depositions are clearly admissible to rebut the evidence of defendants.