Dexter v. Taber

12 Johns. 239
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1815
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 239 (Dexter v. Taber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dexter v. Taber, 12 Johns. 239 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The motion for a new trial must be denied. The slanderous words charged in the declaration are, that the defendant said, to the plaintiff, 11 You are a thief.” The witness who proved the speaking of these: words, went on to explain in what connexion, and in reference to what subject the words were spoken, to wit, “ You are a thief, you have stolen hoop poles and saw logs from off Delancey's and Judge Myers's land,” alluding to certain wood lands belonging to those persons. The charge thus made may be equivocal and somewhat doubtful ; and had the whole charge, as made and proved, been set out in the declaration; and if this was a motion in arrest of judgment, it might well be contended that the words import a charge of felony. But it wag correctly stated to the jury, that if the defendant intended to charge the plaintiff with taking hoop poles and saw logs, already cut, it was a charge of felony. But if he only meant to charge him with cutting and carrying them away, it was only charging him with having committed a trespass. And in what sense the words were intended to be used was for the jury to determine. This point is well settled, both in our own, and in the English courts, (1 Johns. Ca. 279. Wm. Black. Rep. 959. Cowp. 278. 9 East, 96.) The terms ?s hoop poles” and “ saw logs,” in common parlance, are used indiscriminately, as applicable both to standing and felled timber of these descriptions. And the jury have found, that the words were used in the former sense ; and, of course, not amounting to a charge of felony. And the facts in the case fully warrant the finding pf the jury.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Morhous v. Plattsburgh Publishing Co.
206 Misc. 115 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Lauder v. Jones
101 N.W. 907 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1904)
Juskovitz v. Rafsky
130 N.Y.S. 839 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Gallagher v. Bryant
44 A.D. 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Steele v. Edwards
15 Ohio C.C. 52 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1897)
Hotchkiss v. Olmstead
37 Ind. 74 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Maynard v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
34 Cal. 48 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Edsall v. Brooks
3 Rob. 284 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1865)
Barton v. Holmes
16 Iowa 252 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1864)
Thompson v. Grimes
5 Ind. 385 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1854)
Williams v. Cawley
18 Ala. 206 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1850)
Snyder v. Andrews
6 Barb. 43 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Paddock v. Salisbury
2 Cow. 811 (New York Supreme Court, 1824)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Johns. 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dexter-v-taber-nysupct-1815.