Lafollett v. McCarthy

Appellate Court of Illinois

Lafollett v. McCarthy

18 Ill. App. 87, 1885 Ill. App. LEXIS 112

DecidedDecember 4, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Ill. App. 87 (Lafollett v. McCarthy) 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

Lafollett v. McCarthy, 18 Ill. App. 87, 1885 Ill. App. LEXIS 112 (Ill. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Pleasants, J.

Case for slander, plea not guilty, verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $55, and appeal by defendant, whose complaint is that the instructions did not submit to the jury the question of malice under the rule in Zuckerman v. Sonnenschein, 62 Ill. 115.

The words charged are: “You had better go to Tom McWade and pay him back the twenty dollars you got from him by false pretenses,” and there was evidence clearly tending to prove them. Unexplained they impute a crime, not indeed by strict definition, which is unnecessary, but by general description identifying it to the common understanding, as by, a name, which is sufficient and therefore implies malice. What distinguishes the case from the one above cited is the failure on the part of the defendant here to show any circumstances tending to rebut this implication. He merely testified that the words used were different from those laid in the declaration. Thus, upon the pleadings and proofs the. only-issue for the jury to try was upon the speaking of the words so laid, and upon this issue they were fairly instructed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pleasants, J.

Case for slander, plea not guilty, verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $55, and appeal by defendant, whose complaint is that the instructions did not submit to the jury the question of malice under the rule in Zuckerman v. Sonnenschein, 62 Ill. 115.

The words charged are: “You had better go to Tom McWade and pay him back the twenty dollars you got from him by false pretenses,” and there was evidence clearly tending to prove them. Unexplained they impute a crime, not indeed by strict definition, which is unnecessary, but by general description identifying it to the common understanding, as by, a name, which is sufficient and therefore implies malice. What distinguishes the case from the one above cited is the failure on the part of the defendant here to show any circumstances tending to rebut this implication. He merely testified that the words used were different from those laid in the declaration. Thus, upon the pleadings and proofs the. only-issue for the jury to try was upon the speaking of the words so laid, and upon this issue they were fairly instructed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Ill. App. 87, 1885 Ill. App. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafollett-v-mccarthy-illappct-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack