Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 La. Ann. 358

Fulda v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided June 15, 1854

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1854-06-15

<p>The interchange of opprobrious epithets, and mutual vituperation and abuse, will justify a Judge in approving a verdict for the defendant, although the slanderous words were proved ; and a verdict rendered in such a case will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1950

4 state decisions

2018541860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Campbell, J.

¶1This is an action of slander. The defence is the general denial. The slanderous words were proved as charged; yet the jury who tried the case, rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants, which verdict was approved by the District Judge.

¶2*359The parties to this suit, are evidently persons, coarse and indecorous in their behavior; and the jury no doubt regarded the opprobrious epithets so lavishly bestowed by both of them on each other, as mere mutual vituperation and abuse. Under these circumstances, we will not disturb their verdict.

¶3It is not fit that such cases as this record presents, should be brought before the courts. Better far would it have been for the credit of the parties and the cause of justice, if the matters disclosed had been permitted to remain only in the knowledge of the bye-standers, than .to have blazoned them on the records of the tribunals.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/9/laann/358 · .json · Public domain