Bradley v. Gardner
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
In an action of slander, for words spoken in the presence and hearing of the plaintiff, and immediately after the defendant had uttered the slanderous words the plaintiff replied to them, which reply plaintiff offered to prove on the trial, and the Court refused to hear such proof: Meld, that such ruling of the Court was error, as the reply-might have qualified or explained the slanderous words, or shown in wliat sense they were uttered, or might have even admitted their truth.
Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court Terry, C. J., and Field, J., concurring.
Without considering the other assignments of error, it is apparent that the judgment must be reversed, on the ground that the Court below, on the trial, refused to admit the proof of the entire conversation between plaintiff and defendant at the time of the uttering of the alleged slanderous words. The question asked was as to the reply made by the plaintiff when the defendant uttered the words for speaking which suit was brought. That reply might have qualified or explained the words, or shown in what sense they were uttered, or even admitted their truth. At all events, they were a part of the transaction out of which the suit arose; and the plaintiff was entitled to have them if he thought them material. For this error, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)