Upham v. Dickinson

Citations

• 50 Ill. 97

Syllabus

<p>1. Slander—of excessive damages. Where the parties to a suit for slander were rival tradesmen in the same city, and the words proved to have been spoken at three different times by the defendant were—the plaintiff “ had stolen two or three thousand dollars from the defendant’s brother, in Ohio”—and upon the trial, the jury brought in their verdict, assessing the plaintiff’s damages at three thousand dollars, and upon the motion for a new trial, the plaintiff remitted one-half, and judgment was rendered for fifteen hundred dollars: Held, that such damages were not excessive.</p> <p>2. Same—of an explanation of slanderous words. Where it is shown that the words spoken by the defendant, in an action for slander of the plaintiff, were, “that he stole two or three thousand dollars from the defendant’s brother, in the State of Ohio,” the mere statement in connection with such words, that the plaintiff was in business with defendant’s brother, or was a clerk for him when he stole the money, would be no explanation of the offensive words, and would not reduce the crime charged from larceny to the common law offense of embezzlement, without the further explanation that the money charged to have been stolen was received from the sale of goods, and appropriated by him.</p>