34 Pa. 114 | Pa. | 1859
The opinion of the court was delivered by
In an action of trespass upon the case for slander, a plaintiff is allowed to insist upon more than compensation. The objects of the action are not only to recover damages for injury done to the plaintiff’s reputation, but to punish the defendant for indulgence of his malice. It is obvious, that the actual injury sustained by the plaintiff, is neither magnified nor diminished by a greater or less degree of malice in the defendant. Yet a plaintiff has always been permitted to adduce evidence of malice beyond that which the slanderous words import. And this is avowedly done to enhance the damages. This increase of damages is punitive, not compensatory. With this, the reputation of the plaintiff has no concern. Evidence of his reputation is important only as affecting the measure of the compensation to which he is entitled. The injury is less when his character was bad. In a certain sense, therefore, the character (reputation) of the plaintiff in every such
It follows, that the court below erred in admitting the evidence mentioned in the first bill of exceptions. It was received upon the authority of Petrie v. Rose, which, the learned judge of the Common Pleas himself seemed to think, is in conflict with principle.
The other assignments of error require no consideration. They present questions which cannot arise upon another trial, if the plaintiff be not permitted to submit evidence of his good character.
The judgment is reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.