Wood v. Custer

Citations

• 86 Kan. 387
• 121 P. 355
• 1912 Kan. LEXIS 302

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Slander — Evidence—Reputation of Plaintiff — Mitigation of Damages. In an action for slander it is competent for the defendant to show, in mitigation of damages, that at the time of the defamation complained of the plaintiff’s general reputation was bad with respect to the matters involved in the charge made against him.</p> <p>2. -Same. Where the plaintiff sues on account of having-been accused of stealing cattle, the defendant is entitled to introduce evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had the general reputation of being guilty of that offense. The rule stated is not satisfied in such a case by allowing evidence that the plaintiff’s general reputation for “honesty, fair dealing and integrity” was bad. The defendant’s right in this regard is not limited by an allegation in his answer that the plaintiff’s reputation for truth and veracity and honesty was such that he could not have been injured by the accusation.</p> <p>3. - Malice — Punitive Damages — Evidence—Motive of Defendant. In an action for damages for being called a cattle thief, actual malice being charged as a basis, for punitive damages, where the defendant denies having made that charge, but avows having said that it was generally believed that the plaintiff had stolen cattle, he should be allowed to testify upon what he based the statements hé avowed making, .whether he believed them, .what basis he had for them, and Whether he was actuated by a desire to injure.the plaintiff.</p> <p>-Punitive Damages — Express Malice Must be Shown. In an action for slander, punitive damages can be allowed only where the defendant is found to have been actuated by express, as distinguished from implied, malice.</p>