Furr v. Speed

Citations

• 74 Miss. 423

Syllabus

<p>1. Slander. Words actionable per se. Poisoned.</p> <p>To charge the defendant with having poisoned the plaintiff is actionable per se.</p> <p>2. Same. Peremptory instruction.</p> <p>If there be a conflict of evidence as to whether the words charg'ed in an action for slander were spoken, it is proper to refuse a peremptory instruction for the plaintiff.</p> <p>3. Same. Damages.</p> <p>It is not error, in an action for slander, to refuse plaintiff an instruction to the effect that proof of damage is unnecessary) when the same fails to state that the jury must believe that the slanderous words were spoken by defendant.</p> <p>4. Same. Intention.</p> <p>Both intention to injure and damage are implied by law from the speaking of words which are slanderous per se.</p> <p>5. Same.</p> <p>If the defendant is shown to have charged plaintiff with having poisoned him, an instruction that before plaintiff can recover, the jury must believe that defendant spoke the words with the intent to say that the plaintiff intentionally poisoned him, is erroneous.</p> <p>6. Same. Proof.</p> <p>A recovery in an action for slander can be had only where the words charged, or synonymous words, are proved to have been spoken.</p>