Fagan v. Fries

Appellate Court of Illinois

Fagan v. Fries

30 Ill. App. 236, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 263

DecidedFebruary 13, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ill. App. 236 (Fagan v. Fries) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fagan v. Fries, 30 Ill. App. 236, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 263 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Moran, J.

Appellant brought an action of slander for words spoken by apjjellee when giving his testimony as a witness on the trial of a law suit between them. When the plaintiff had introduced his evidence, the court, on the motion of appellee, ruled it out, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The action of the court in excluding the evidence is assigned for error on this appeal. Without entering upon a discussion of the question as to whether the words complained of were in any event actionable, the ruling of the court must be sustained on the ground that the words were uttered by the appellee in his character as a witness in a case in which he was a party and appellant was his adversary, and the objectionable words were used in giving a reason for discharging appellant from his employ, when the effort was to make appellee liable in damages for such discharge. The words were certainly within the privilege of a witness, and no recovery can be had for or against the witness for using them.

The case of Hunckel v. Voneiff (Md.) 14 Atlantic Rep. 500, is an authority directly in point.

The judgment is correct and must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Moran, J.

Appellant brought an action of slander for words spoken by apjjellee when giving his testimony as a witness on the trial of a law suit between them. When the plaintiff had introduced his evidence, the court, on the motion of appellee, ruled it out, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The action of the court in excluding the evidence is assigned for error on this appeal. Without entering upon a discussion of the question as to whether the words complained of were in any event actionable, the ruling of the court must be sustained on the ground that the words were uttered by the appellee in his character as a witness in a case in which he was a party and appellant was his adversary, and the objectionable words were used in giving a reason for discharging appellant from his employ, when the effort was to make appellee liable in damages for such discharge. The words were certainly within the privilege of a witness, and no recovery can be had for or against the witness for using them.

The case of Hunckel v. Voneiff (Md.) 14 Atlantic Rep. 500, is an authority directly in point.

The judgment is correct and must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Ill. App. 236, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fagan-v-fries-illappct-1889.