48 Barb. 58 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1866
The complaint alleges that the' defendant spoke of and concerning the plaintiff the following words: “You are a thief:” “you are a damn thief.” The evidence proves the utterance of the words charged, and they impute the crime of larceny, and are actionable.
The court charged the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, and the only question for them to determine was the amount of damages. To this charge the counsel for the defendant excepted. The defendant’s counsel requested the court to charge the jury that if they believed that the language complained of, and in question, was intended and understood to relate to the difficulty about the pay roll, their verdict should be for the defendant. The court refused so to charge, and the defendant’s counsel excepted.
This case is to be considered upon the two exceptions. The defendant’s counsel insists that the explanatory matter which accompanied the slanderous words, so qualified them that the crime of larceny was not imputed; or at least that it was for the jury to determine whether or not such crime was charged.
• The request to the judge to charge the jury was too indefinite, and if acquiesced in,- would probably have misled the jury. When a party desires to have a question of fact sub-
A new trial should be denied with costs.
Miller, Ingalls and Sogehomn, J ustices.]