Harman v. Cundiff

Citations

• 82 Va. 239
• 1886 Va. LEXIS 26

Syllabus

<p>1. Slander—Declaration—Actionable words.—Merely opprobrious epithets, as rascal, cheat, villain', without a colloquium, are not actionable. But to call a man a thief, to say of him he stole my sheep, or that he stole sheep, are words which impute a punishable offence, and are actionable, and a declaration charging that defendant used those words of plaintiff is good.</p> <p>2. Practice at Common Law—Variance—Amendment.—Where declaration charges that the slanderous words were uttered in the presence of three named persons, and proof is that one of the three was not present, declaration may be amended at the trial, as the variance is immaterial. Code 1873, ch. 173, sec. 7.</p> <p>3. Idem—Evidence in mitigation.—At trial of action for slander defendant cannot introduce evidence of a fight.which had occurred previous to the uttering of the slander, and to which plaintiff’s attorney had alluded in stating the ease to the jury, the fight having no connection with the slander.</p> <p>4. Idem—Exemplary damages—Wealth of defendant—Instructions.— It is not improper to instruct the jury that if, from the evidence, they believe defendant uttered the slander from actual malice, they may find exemplary damages, and that in estimating the damages they shall consider the standing of the parties, and the wealth of defendant is only to be considered so far as it tends to show his rank and influence in society.</p> <p>5. Idem—Instructions.—When instructions given cover the entire case, and properly submit it to the jury, it is not error to refuse to give others, even though in point of law they are correct. C. L. Asylum v. Flanagan, 80 Va. 110.</p>