Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 Ind. 246

Buscher v. Scully

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1886

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1886-03-24

<p>Practice.'—Exclusion of Evidence.—Misconduct of Counsel in Argument.—Affidavit.—Bill of Exceptions.—Rulings of the trial court in excluding evidence, or in refusing to check the misconduct of counsel in argument, ■can not be brought into the record by affidavit. The proper mode is by a bill of exceptions.</p> <p>Argument oe Counsel.—Misconduct.— When Available for Reversal of Judgment.—It is only where the improper statements of counsel in argument .are of such, a material character as to probably influence the jury in returning a wrong verdict that they are available for the reversal of the judgment.</p> <p>Slander.—Charge of Fornication or Adultery.—It is slander to falsely charge a woman with fornication or adultery, whether in direct terms or by the use of words which impute the offence and are so understood by the hearers.</p> <p>Same. — Variance. — A variance in.the tense of the libellous words as charged in the complaint, and ¡is shown by the evidence, will not preclude a recovery.</p>

Relies on Shular v. State · Boyle v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-03-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1935

12 state decisions

50188618901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Petition for a Rehearing.

Elliott, J.

¶2The appellant contends in his petition for a rehearing that the record presents the question of the misconduct of counsel in argument in two ways, upon affidavit .and by recitals in the bill of exceptions, and that we were in error in holding that it was sought to be presented only on .affidavit. It certainly was attempted to be presented by af*248fidavit, and it is doubtful whether all that is recited in the record does not refer to the statements of the affiants; but,, however this may be, the statements of counsel in argument,, even if improper, were not of such a material character as to warrant a reversal. It is only where the improper statements-of counsel are of such a material character as that it appears-probable, that they ivere instrumental in obtaining a wrong-verdict, that a reversal will be adjudged. Boyle v. State, 105 Ind. 469; Shular v. State, 105 Ind. 289, and authorities cited.

¶3Petition overruled.

¶4Filed June 26, 1886.

/107/ind/246 · .json · Public domain