Cain v. Shutt

Citations

• 66 A. 24
• 105 Md. 304
• 1907 Md. LEXIS 23

Syllabus

<p>Slander — Repetition—Instructions.</p> <p>In an action of slander, the evidence showed that there was a dispute between plaintiff and defendant as to the payment of goods bought by the former from the latter; that the defendant in the presence of strangers called thé plaintiff a liar and a thief, and that on another occasion the defendant in the presence of third parties said to the plaintiff that he had called him a liar and thief and that he could prove it. It was not shown that the persons in whose presence the slanderous words were spoken had such knowledge of the circumstances as to understand that the defendant did not intend to impute to plaintiff the commission of a crime. Held,, that the case should have been submitted to the jury, and it was error to instruct them that “it appearing from the plaintiff’s own testimony that the language alleged to. have been used by the defendant was not used as imputing a crime to the plaintiff and could not have been so understood by the bystanders, the verdict must be for the defendant.”</p> <p>The repetition of a slander may be considered by the jury in determining the presence or absence of malice on the part of the defendant in • speaking the words charged in the declaration.</p>