Swan v. Thompson

Trial—General Objections to Evidence.—Where a specific objection to evidence is not needed to expose a latent vice lurking in the question, which is relied upon by the party objecting, and the question is objectionable from every standpoint, the general objections that the evidence asked for is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent, are sufficient.

Slander—Charge of Drunkenness against Master Mariner—Evidence—Cross-examination—Barratry.—In an action to recover damages for an alleged slander in charging the plaintiff, who was a master mariner, with drunkenness, evidence offered upon cross-examination tending to show the willingness of the plaintiff to commit the crime of barratry, a matter not involved in the case, and which neither explained or discredited any statement made by the witness upon his direct examination, is improper cross-examination, and is not competent, in any aspect of the case.

In.—Reports of Drunkenness—Malice in Fact.—A witness for plaintiff, who has testified nothing in his examination in chief concerning plaintiff’s drunkenness, or reports of his drunkenness, cannot he properly asked on cross-examination how many reports came to him while in command of the vessel that the plaintiff was drinking. But the defendant may testify in chief that various officers and sailors under command of plaintiff told him that plaintiff was in the habit of getting drunk upon voyages, as bearing upon the questions of malice in fact, and as to \\ whether the communication made by the defendant to an ia- ' ' surance company was privileged.

Id.—Justification of Charge—Pleading—Evidence.—Where the complaint alleged that defendant had made charges that plaintiff was a drunkard and in the habit of getting drunk, a general justification of the truth of the charges made as alleged in the complaint is sufficient; but evidence of drunkenness outside of the times specified and covered by the plea of justification is inadmissible.

Id.—Broad Charge op Drunkenness—Injury as to Occupation.—A charge that a “master mariner has been in the habit of getting drunk” is sufficiently broad to cover his conduct upon his voyages, as well as between his voyages, and tends to injure him in relation to his occupation, by imputing to him a general disqualification in those respects which the occupation peculiarly requires, and is an actionable slander.

Id.—Privileged Communication — Pleading. — Such a charge is not privileged, where no claim is made in the answer that it is a privileged communication.

Malicious Prosecution for Assault—Evidence—Use of Pistol—Explanation of Possession.—In an action for a malicious prosecution for an assault, where it became a material fact whether or not plaintiff used a pistol in an assault upon the defendant, and the parties contradicted each other as to such use, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to show the circumstances under which he came into possession of the pistol, in proof of his innocent possession thereof.