Buckner v. Spaulding

Decided February 7, 1891

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1891-02-07

<p>Slander. — Pleading.—Answer.—In an action for slander in charging the plaintiff with adultery with one man, an answer which alleges that she was guilty of adultery with another man, is bad.</p> <p>Bill op Exceptions. — Time of Filing. — Where the record shows that the • bill of exceptions was not filed within the time allowed by the court, and it does not appear in the body of the bill when it was presented, the bill will not be regarded as properly in the record.</p>

Relies on Rigler v. Rigler · Buchart v. Burger · City of Plymouth v. Fields

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-02-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1929

4 state decisions

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 →

Elliott, J.

¶1The complaint alleges that the defendant, here the appellant, slandered the plaintiff by falsely charging her with adultery with one Williams. The answer is, in substance, that the plaintiff did have sexual intercourse with one Ploder. The answer is so clearly bad that discussion is unnecessary. Hallowell v. Guntle, 82 Ind. 554; Ricket v. Stanley, 6 Blackf. 169. It is no answer to a slanderous charge that the plaintiff was guilty of a specific act of adultery with one man to allege that she was guilty of a specific act of adultery with another man.

¶2The record shows that the bill of exceptions was not filed *230within the time allowed by the court, and it does not appear in the body of the bill when it was presented to the judge. The bill can not be regarded as properly in the record. City of Plymouth v. Fields, 125 Ind. 323; Rigler v. Rigler, 120 Ind. 431; Buchart v. Burger, 115 Ind. 123.

Filed Feb. 7, 1891.

¶3Judgment affirmed.