Rodefer v. Brooking

<p>1. LIBEL AND SLANDER: Pleading: Answer: Admissions: Enough of Exact Words to Constitute Slander: Effect. In an action for slander, where the gist of the charge alleged to have been made by defendant against plaintiff was that “C. R. is a God Damned thief,” the admission in the answer that defendant said, “I am convinced he (C. R.) is a damned thief,” was an admission of enough of the identical words charged in the petition to constitute the slander.</p> <p>2. -: Evidence: Exact Words: Sufficiency. In slander cases it is essential that enough of the exact words- charged in the petition be proved to make out the precise slander charged, although all of the words need not be proyed, as many of them may be immaterial, and additional words may be proved which are not necessary to and which do not destroy the charge.</p> <p>3. INSTRUCTIONS: Libel and Slander: Instruction Not Misleading or Assuming Jury Should Pind Some Damages. In an action for slander, an instruction which told the jury that the evidence in reference to the general reputation of the plaintiff and in refer-, ence to rumors and reports about plaintiff being guilty of certain specific charges should not be considered as evidence of the truth of the words spoken by defendant, charging plaintiff with the crime of larceny, in case they should find that the defendant did speak such words, but that such matter could only be considered as bearing upon the amount of actual damage, if any, which the jury might find the plaintiff is entitled to, held not objectionable as misleading or assuming that the jury should find some amount of damages in view of the fact that the words “if any” are used following the words “amount of actual damage,” and in view of other instructions given.</p> <p>4. LIBEL AND SLANDER: - Slanderous Charges in t?ne Conversation: One Cause of Action. Where several slanderous charges are all made in a single conversation though relating to distinct offenses, that constitute but one cause of action, and should all be embraced in a single count.</p> <p>5. -: Petition in Three Counts: Single Cause of Action: Damages: Verdict’ on Each Count: Error Cured by Remittitur. In an action fór slander, where the petition contained three counts, and the evidence shows that defendant in one conversation, the substance of which charged the plaintiff with being a thief, that he stole defendant’s furs, his trap, and his corn, the words, under the circumstances, constituted one single cause of action, and the plaintiff had no right to divide the conversation into parts and make it the basis of several distinct causes of action, and recover judgment on each count, and having done so and having recovered a judgment of $1000 on each of three counts, the point having been saved by motion in arrest of judgment, the error would be cured by a remittitur of $2000 leaving the judgment stand for the difference, the sum of $1000.</p>