82 Vt. 297 | Vt. | 1909
The declaration charges that the defendant said of the plaintiff that he “had stolen from the town.” There is no prefatory averment, and no innuendo explanatory of the words “had stolen.” The defendant moved in arrest, for that the words spoken were not actionable in themselves.
It is certainly actionable to charge one with stealing; and if the defendant’s claim can stand it must be upon the theory that the words which import a taking lose their actionable
The defendant excepted to the charge that the question of privilege was not in the case. The charge was correct, for while the occasion was one of qualified privilege, the defendant was not in a position to profit by it. He did not justify the words by pleading or evidence, but denied having spoken them, and negatived any knowledge that would justify them. Clemons v. Danforth, 67 Vt. 617, 32 Atl. 626, 48 Am. St. Rep. 836; Kidder v. Bacon, 74 Vt. 263, 52 Atl. 322.
It was not error to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff had proved the speaking of the words charged he was entitled to recover. There was no question for the jury regarding the meaning of the words. They were to be taken as having been used and understood in their ordinary sense, unless the defence introduced evidence giving them a different meaning. But here the defendant denied* the speaking of the words, and so had nothing to explain. The testimony referred to by counsel re
The statements above referred to were properly received in evidence. The circumstances made them admissible, even if they were not similar in character to those declared upon within the meaning of the rule stated in Cavanaugh v. Austin, 42 Vt. 576. It seems that later in the same afternoon the defendant called the witness to him and said, “I suppose you think it was a pretty broad statement I made today, ’ ’ and upon receiving an affirmative reply said further, “I can prove it,” and went on to state several transactions in which he claimed plaintiff had defrauded the town. The manner in which the defendant brought up the subject, and connected these matters with what he had said on the occasion in question, made the later statements admissible as evidence of malice. The charge did not directly limit the use of this testimony, but no exception was taken to a failure in this respect.
Other claims, not specifically noticed, are disposed of by the views above expressed.
Judgment affirmed.