Ellis v. Lindley

Supreme Court of Iowa

Ellis v. Lindley

38 Iowa 461

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 12, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 Iowa 461 (Ellis v. Lindley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellis v. Lindley, 38 Iowa 461 (iowa 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Cole, J.

l. slander: damages?' — I. The court instructed the jury, among others, as follows: “16. If defendant has deliberately and repeatedly made the charge against plaintiff, of swearing falsely, and it is not true, and you are satisfied it was done maliciously, you should consider this in aggravation of damages.” This was error. It was expressly said by this court in Beardsley v. Bridgman, 17 Iowa, [462]*462290; that such evidence “ is not admissible to bear upon or to aggravate the damages.” The authorities seem to be almost uniform upon this question; see those cited in the ease just quoted. In Forbes v. Myers, 8 Blackf., 74, an instruction that “ if the defendant repeated the charges at various times, it would be a circumstance the jury might take into consideration as proof of malice and aggravation of damages,” was held erroneous. In this case it appears from the evidence that the defendant repeated the charge against the plaintiff of swearing falsely, both before and after the action was brought.

2. justificaof evidence, II. The court also instructed the jury that “it takes the same degree and certainty in the evidence to fully support the plea of justification, that it would to convict on indictment for perjury.” This rule has been heretofore expressly approved by this court. See Fountain v. West, 23 Iowa, 9, and cases there cited. We cannot overturn this rule, in the face of our previous decisions and the weight of the authorities in support of it.

Other questions are made upon the action of the court in refusing to exclude certain evidence introduced by the plaintiff, on the ground that the defendant, had, since its introduction, abandoned in part his plea of justification, and withdrawn portions of his testimony upon that branch of his defense. But since the judgment must be reversed for the error first above adjudged, and since, by reason of the change of the issues, the same questions cannot again occur, it is unnecessary for us to review these other questions.

Reversed.

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

Cole, J.

l. slander: damages?' — I. The court instructed the jury, among others, as follows: “16. If defendant has deliberately and repeatedly made the charge against plaintiff, of swearing falsely, and it is not true, and you are satisfied it was done maliciously, you should consider this in aggravation of damages.” This was error. It was expressly said by this court in Beardsley v. Bridgman, 17 Iowa, [462]*462290; that such evidence “ is not admissible to bear upon or to aggravate the damages.” The authorities seem to be almost uniform upon this question; see those cited in the ease just quoted. In Forbes v. Myers, 8 Blackf., 74, an instruction that “ if the defendant repeated the charges at various times, it would be a circumstance the jury might take into consideration as proof of malice and aggravation of damages,” was held erroneous. In this case it appears from the evidence that the defendant repeated the charge against the plaintiff of swearing falsely, both before and after the action was brought.

2. justificaof evidence, II. The court also instructed the jury that “it takes the same degree and certainty in the evidence to fully support the plea of justification, that it would to convict on indictment for perjury.” This rule has been heretofore expressly approved by this court. See Fountain v. West, 23 Iowa, 9, and cases there cited. We cannot overturn this rule, in the face of our previous decisions and the weight of the authorities in support of it.

Other questions are made upon the action of the court in refusing to exclude certain evidence introduced by the plaintiff, on the ground that the defendant, had, since its introduction, abandoned in part his plea of justification, and withdrawn portions of his testimony upon that branch of his defense. But since the judgment must be reversed for the error first above adjudged, and since, by reason of the change of the issues, the same questions cannot again occur, it is unnecessary for us to review these other questions.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Iowa 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-lindley-iowa-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack