Adams v. Smith
Citations
- 58 Ill. 417
Syllabus
<p>1. Instructions—should not he numerous. Instructions should always be clear, accurate and concise statements of the law as applicable to the facts of the case. It was never contemplated, under the provisions of the practice act, that the court should be required to give avast number of instructions, amounting, in the aggregate, to a lengthy address; such a practice is mischievous, and ought to be discontinued. A few concise statements of the law applicable to the facts are all that can be required, and are all that can serve any practical purpose in the elucidation of the case.</p> <p>2. Whether error will reverse—of improper instructions. While it is true, that the refusal of proper instructions, or the giving of improper ones, will not always occasion a reversal of the judgment, yet that is when substantial justice has been done, and the instructions were not of such character as would tend to mislead the jury on the doubtful facts in the case,</p> <p>3. The general rule is, if the instructions are objectionable, and the natural effect would be to mislead the jury where the facts are controverted, the verdict will be set aside and a new trial awarded.</p> <p>4. Slander—msasure of damages—evidence of character. In an action for slander, the court instructed the jury, on behalf of the plaintiff, that evidence of character was admissible for the purpose of showing the extent of the injury, but not in justification, and then directed them, that if the defendant had failed, under his plea of justification, to prove the plaintiff guilty of the crime charged, then they would be bound under the law, no matter what the proof as to the general character of the plaintiff, to find for him in any sum not exceeding $5000, which was the amount of the ad damnum laid in the declaration.</p> <p>This was stating the rule too broadly. While it is true, that the character of a party, however bad, does not justify the utterance of slanderous words, yet the measure of damages is vast
Judges: Scott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Knierim v. IzzoIllinois Supreme Court· 1961-03-29· cited 328×
- Pegram v. StortzWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1888-02-28· cited 51×
- West Chicago Street Railroad v. PettersIllinois Supreme Court· 1902-04-16· cited 31×
- Baker v. ThompsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1949-04-21· cited 31×
- O'Malley v. Illinois Publishing & Printing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1915-10-05· cited 13×
- Eastman v. West Chicago St. R. R.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1899-01-09· cited 12×
- Daubach v. Drake Hotel Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1927-02-07· cited 12×
- Moore v. MaxeyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1910-02-11· cited 8×
- Kravitz v. Chicago City Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1912-10-31· cited 8×
- Komorowski v. Boston StoreAppellate Court of Illinois· 1931-10-19· cited 7×
- Illinois Central Railroad v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1899-01-09· cited 6×
- Chicago City Ry. Co. v. SanduskyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1901-12-24· cited 6×
- Schluraff v. Shore Line Motor Coach Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1933-03-06· cited 6×
- Bunch v. McAllisterAppellate Court of Illinois· 1932-04-27· cited 5×
- East St. Louis & Carondelet Ry. Co. v. FrazierAppellate Court of Illinois· 1886-07-10· cited 2×
- Corning v. DollmeyerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-10-25· cited 1×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.