Zimmerman v. McMakin

Citations

• 22 S.C. 372
• 1885 S.C. LEXIS 32

Syllabus

<p>1. An allegation that “defendant, on January 7, 1882, in the city of S., and in the presence of T. and others, did falsely and maliciously defame and slander the plaintiff, by saying that she had sworn lies on that day before Trial Justice Thomason, on the trial of a cause in which one M. was plaintiff, and one Z. was defendant, thereby injuring the said plaintiff” — states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. If more particularity was desired, a motion should have been made, before trial, to require the allegations to be more definitely stated.</p> <p>2. In action of slander it is not incumbent on plaintiff to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant uttered the words charged, or their substance.</p> <p>3. In action of slander it is not necessary to prove the words precisely as laid in the complaint, but it is sufficient to prove them substantially as laid.</p> <p>4. There seems to be no substantial difference between the words, “public whore,” charged in the complaint, and “whorish bitch,” the words proved at the trial; and it should have been left to the jury to say whether the words proved were used in the sense of those alleged. The Circuit judge erred in charging, as matter of law, that they were not substantially the same.</p>