Bellis v. Roberts
This text of 52 Misc. 493 (Bellis v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Since the evidence upon the material issues of this ease cannot, as a matter of law, be regarded as preponderating on either side, the determination of the jury that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages for slander cannot, on that ground, be disturbed. The learned trial judge, however, charged the jury that the allegation in the defendant’s answer that the charge is true may b'e considered by the jury as an aggravation of damages. This charge should have been qualified by a direction that the reiteration of the slander in the answer shall be considered in aggravation of damages, provided that “ the circumstances evince that the reiteration of the slander in the answer was done maliciously and without probable cause for believing it true.” Distin v. Rose, 69 N. Y. 122. Since the slander was uttered only to the plaintiff’s employer, who continued to employ the plaintiff as a furniture salesman after the slander was uttered, the verdict of $1,000 which the jury awarded to the plaintiff seems to have been influenced, as to its amount, by the error in the charge of the learned trial judge.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Gildebsleeve, J., concurs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 Misc. 493, 102 N.Y.S. 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellis-v-roberts-nyappterm-1907.