Bechtell v. Shatler
This text of 1 Wright 107 (Bechtell v. Shatler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The words are charged to have been spoken in a discourse with divers people, and in their hearing. The question is one of publication; if published, it is sufficient. In England, it has been held, that if the words are spoken in Welsh iñ a Welsh county, no averment is required that they are understood. The-court will intend they were understood in such case; Stark. on [108]*108Slander, 85. If that is good law, the rule seems equally applicable to German words, spoken in a German county, like this. We hold the question one of publication. After verdict, it will be intended that words spoken in a discourse with divers people, concerning another, with a malicious intent, were uttered in a language understood by those he addressed.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Wright 107, 1 Ohio Ch. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bechtell-v-shatler-ohio-1832.