TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McCabe v. Platter

McCabe and Wife v. Platter

McCabe v. Platter, 6 Blackf. 405 (1843)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1843
Judges
Blackford
Citations
6 Blackf. 405
Headnotes
Sdander— Evidence in Mitigation.—A feme sole brought an action » slander for words charging her with fornication and adultery. Pleas, na guilty, and that the words were true. Held, that the defendant might prove, in mitigation of damages, the plaintiff’s general character as to chastity to be bad. Held, also, that evidence in support of the plaintiff’s character was inadmissible, until'there had been an attempt, by evidence, to impeach it.(a)
Summary
ERROR to the Ripley Circuit Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Blackford

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

Blackford, J.

Emily Platter brought an action against John Me Cabe and Margaret his wife, for slanderous words spoken by the wife, charging the plaintiff with fornication and adultery. Pleas, 1, Not guilty; 2, That the words were true. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendants, on the trial, offered to prove the general character of the plaintiff as to chastity to be bad; the evidence was objected to, and the objection sustained. The objection' should have been overruled. The evidence was admissible in mitigation of damages, notwithstanding the plea of justification. Kirkman v. Oxley, cited in 2 Stark. Ev., 306, note; McNutt v. Young, 8 Leigh, 542 . These cases are in point; and the same opinion is intimated in Sanders v. Johnson, Nov. term, 1841.

After the defendants had closed their testimony—they having given no evidence to impeach the plaintiff’s character,— the plaintiff offered to prove her general character to be good; the defendants objected to the evidence; but the objection was *435 overruled. Had the general issue alone been pleaded, the evidence would have been clearly inadmissible; and we are of opinion that the mere fact that there is a plea of justification, ought not to make any difference. We consider the law to be, that the plaintiff, in a case like the present, can not give evidence in support of his character, until the defendant *has attempted, by evidence, to impeach it. It is decided in Cornwall v. Richardson, 1 Ryan & Moody, 305, that such evidence is not admissible for the plaintiff, whether there be a plea of justification or not. The objection in question should, therefore, have been sustained.

J. Dumont, for the plaintiffs. W. Lyle, for the defendant.

Per Curiam.—The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

How later courts describe this case

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

1852–1853: 11860–1861: 11874–1875: 11888–1889: 118522026peak 1852 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clark v. Brown116 Mass. 504 (1875)
  2. Hitchcock v. Moore37 N.W. 914 (Mich. 1888)
  3. Miles v. Vanhorn17 Ind. 245 (1861)
  4. Dame v. Kenney25 N.H. 318 (1852)

Most recent

  1. Hitchcock v. Moore37 N.W. 914 (Mich. 1888)
  2. Clark v. Brown116 Mass. 504 (1875)
  3. Miles v. Vanhorn17 Ind. 245 (1861)
  4. Dame v. Kenney25 N.H. 318 (1852)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list