Corbley v. Wilson

Citations

• 71 Ill. 209

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—record of suit in, court not competent as against strangers to it. In an action for slander, which consisted in charging the plaintiff with having committed a certain crime, the defendant pleaded the truth of the words spoken. On the trial, the court permitted the plaintiff to read in evidence theirecord of an indictment against him for the same crime, and of his trial and acquittal: Held, that this was error.</p> <p>2. So far as the plaintiff and the people are concerned, that record can speak anywhere and everywhere, but it is not binding upon any one not a party or privy, and if the plaintiff was guilty of the crime charged to him, the defendant had the right to make the charge and prove it under his plea of justification, notwithstanding the record of acquittal, and that record was not competent evidence against the defendant for any ¡mrpose.</p> <p>3. Slander—failure to prove plea of justification. It is error to instruct the jury, in an action for slander, that the defense of justification is odious when not sustained by the evidence, and such an instruction can not but influence the jury against the defendant.</p> <p>4. Under the statute, a defendant has a right to plead as many matters of fact, in several pleas, as he may deem necessary for his defense, and this being a right secured to him by law, it can not be odious for him to interpose a plea of justification, in a suit for slander, although it is not sustained by proof.</p> <p>5. Same—what evidence required to sustain a plea of justification. In an action for slander, in charging the plaintift' with the commission of a crime, if the defendant pleads justification, he must prove the truth of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The same testimony that would be required to convict the party on the criminal charge should be adduced. This rule is not changed by the act of 1867 concerning evidence.</p>