Case ID: wright_1/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      COLLETT, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*PICKAWAY COUNTY,
    NOVEMBER TERM, 1834.
    JUDGES — COLLETT AND WRIGHT.
    FLAMINGHAM v. BOUCHER.
    Slander — statute of limitations — notice—aggravation.
    On a plea of the statute of limitations in slander, the jury must exclude from view words which are barred by the statute, in determining the plaintiff’s right to recover; but that right established, they may consider the words barred, to show malice and in aggravation of damages.
    Slander. Words, you are a thief. Plea, not guilty, and the statute of limitations.
    
      Green and Olds for the plaintiff.
    
      Caldwell and Irvin for the defendant.
   COLLETT, C. J.

tto the jiua-y: If the evidence' satisfies you- the-words, were spoken- within a. year before the date of the writ, the plaintiff wi'1'1. have a right to recover;: but in determining that question, under the pleadings, you- should lay out of view all words spoken-more, than a year before the writ. But if the words are proven to have been- spoken within the year, and the plaintiff’s right is thus established, you may then-take info.-view words spoken more-than a year, to show the degree of malice which influenced the slanderer and to aggravate the damages.