Williams v. Hill

19 Wend. 305
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1838·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Cowen, J.

The words were proved importing direct criminal connection between the plaintiff and a man who visited her in the character of a suitor. The plaintiff’s connections forbade her visits to their houses ; she appears to have been thus ejected from the house of her uncle, John Williams, while there on a visit, by reason of the report, not to mention other like instances. Moore v. Meagher, 1 Taunt. 39, in the exchequer chamber, is in point. The very decision was that the plaintiff being cut off from the hospitality of her friends, is such legal damage as will sustain an action on the charge of incontinency. And see Starkie on slander, 266.

The motion must be denied.

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

Williams v. Hill, 19 Wend. 305 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1838).

19 Wend. 305 (Williams v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cady v. Brooklyn Union Publishing Co.
23 Misc. 409 (New York Supreme Court, 1898)
Gates v. . New York Recorder Co.
49 N.E. 769 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
Flatow v. Von Bremsen
33 N.Y. St. Rep. 23 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1890)
McQueen v. Fulgham
27 Tex. 463 (Texas Supreme Court, 1864)
Terwilliger v. . Wands
17 N.Y. 54 (New York Court of Appeals, 1858)
Beach v. Ranney
2 Hill & Den. 309 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)