Chisholm v. Keyfauver

The Court. Action for slander. The complaint is composed of three counts. The first charges, in substance, that the defendant maliciously and falsely spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff, in the presence and hearing of one R M. Rockholt, at a specified time and place, that he (defendant) believed that plaintiff stole a certain hog then in plaintiff’s possession, thereby meaning and intending to accuse the plaintiff of being guilty of grand larceny; and that said Rockholt so understood the words spoken. The second count is in substance the same as the first, except that the speaking and publication were at a different time and place, and in the presence and hearing of a different person, viz., one J. R. Young. The third count charges that defendant, in the presence and hearing of said J. R. Young, accused plaintiff of having stolen a certain halter strap, intending thereby to cjiarge plaintiff with being guilty of >petit larceny, and being so understood by Young, etc.

The answer of the defendant is, perhaps justly, criticised on the ground that it does not specifically nor unqualifiedly deny the speaking or publication of the words alleged to have been spoken; but as there was no demurrer to the answer, and as the cause appears to have been tried, as if the denials were sufficient, it is unnecessary to consider this point.

In addition to denials, the defendant alleged in his answer the following:

“ For a further and separate defense, defendant alleges that the plaintiff in said action did, in the month of February, 1893, at Sutter county, admit and state to defendant that he, the plaintiff, had been guilty of stealing hogs; that plaintiff stated to defendant that he, plaintiff, had stolen a pig or young hog, of a.fine breed of hogs, from one Mu maw, and that plaintiff pointed out said pig or hog to defendant, and insinuated that he had stolen the same.

“ That, at about the time and place last aforesaid, plaintiff stated to the defendant that he, plaintiff, had [104]lay hidden in the brush near the barn of one Frazier nearly a whole day for the purpose of stealing pigs belonging to said Frazier, and did at said time succeed in stealing about five of said pigs, and did carry said pigs away from said Frazier’s in a sack, and bring them to the premises of this defendant, where plaintiff resided, and turn them out, where they now remain.

“That as to the said hog, which plaintiff charges the defendant with having stated that plaintiff did steal said hog, defendant alleges that plaintiff told him conflicting stories as to the manner in which plaintiff had acquired said hog, and did, in the opinion of defendant, act suspiciously when questioned as to how he, plaintiff, had become possessed of said hog, and if defendant ever made any statement in regard to plaintiff and the manner of his acquisition of said hog, that was in any way derogatory to the good name of plaintiff, such statement was brought about by the admission aforesaid in regard to the stealing of the hogs of Mu maw and of Frazier, and the suspicious actions and contradictory statements of plaintiff when questioned about the hog that defendant is charged by plaintiff with having stated that plaintiff had stolen.