¶1refused the new trial, because the defendant had, in effect, had the full benefit of two new trials. Each trial had been full and fair, • and three ■ verdicts had been rendered against him. Because the Court was not satisfied that any of the jurors had been guilty of any improper conduct; and because the Court was still of opinion that the jury, if from the corroborating evidence they were satisfied upon the whole evidence that the defendant was guilty of speaking the words as laid in the declaration, did right in giving their verdict for the plaintiff, although they may have believed that the witness wilfully swore falsely in regard to the letter.
2 D.C. 324
Turner v. Foxall
Decided May 15, 1822
This was an action of slander, for words spoken of the plaintiff. -The declaration contained four counts. 1. Held: &c., in a certain conversation which the defendant had with the said John Eveleth, of and concerning the plaintiff as a person concerned in the said boat, and as a stockholder therein, and of and concerning the plaintiff’s interest therein, &e., and of and concerning the plaintiff’s circumstances and character, spoke, in the hearing…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1993
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1822-05-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →