Forbes v. Myers
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Blackford, J.
Myers brought an action of slander against Forbes, alleging in the declaration that the defendant had charged him with having committed robbery and theft. Pleas, not guilty and the statute of limitations. On the trial, the Court instructed the jury that “if the defendant repeated the charges at various times, it would be a circumstance the jury might take into consideration as proof of malice and aggravation of damages.” Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff
We think this instruction is wrong. If the defendant, after making the charges alleged in the declaration, repeated them, he was liable to a separate action for each repetition of the slander. The effect, therefore, of permitting a repetition of the slander to be proved in a suit for the previous speak *75 ing of the words, to aggravate the damages, would be to enable the plaintiff to recover more than once for the same cause of action. The speaking of the same words laid in the declaration subsequently to the bringing of the action, may be proved to show malice in fact, but not to aggravate the damages. Barwell v. Adkins, 1 Mann. & Granger, 807 (1) .
J. S. Reid and C. H. Test, for the appellant. J. B. Sleith and J. Ryman, for the appellee.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed with' costs. Cause remanded, &c.
See Schoonover v. Rowe, 7 Blackf. 202 , and note.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.