Mitchell v. Milholland

Citations

• 106 Ill. 175
• 1883 Ill. LEXIS 157

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—proof of the reversal of a decision relied on, by a higher tribunal. Where one party on the trial of a cause introduces in evidence and relies on the decision of the presbytery as having a bearing upon the merits of the case, there is no error in allowing the opposite party to show the proceeding of the synod, a higher church tribunal, reversing and annulling that decision, the synod being invested with power to decide the question involved.</p> <p>2. Slander—malice implied from speaking actionable words. In an action for slander, in which a plea of justification was interposed, the court instructed the jury, in substance, that the words “he perjured himself,” “you swore to a lie,” (having reference to the plaintiff’s testimony in a suit,) when spoken concerning a person in the hearing of others, are what the law terms “actionable words,” and from the speaking of such words the law implies malice, and presumes that the person concerning whom the words are spoken is damaged: Feld, that the instruction stated the law correctly.</p> <p>3. Same—malice in fact need not be proved. In an action for slander the law does not require malice in fact to be proven, as malice is implied from the speaking of slanderous words.</p> <p>4. Instruction—plaintiff need not anticipate defence. The plaintiff is only obliged to state the law correctly in his instructions applicable to his theory of the case, and is not bound, in every instruction, to anticipate and exclude every possible defence.</p> <p>5. So in an action for slander, when the speaking of the words were justified as true, an instruction that the words charged were actionable, and imported malice, is not erroneous as ignoring the fact of the truth of the words spoken, especially when the jury are instructed for the defence that if they find the words spoken are true, no recovery could be had.</p> <p>6. Same—assumption of fact. Where one party gave in evidence a decision of a presbytery that the session had no