Case ID: wend_9/html/0470-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Savage, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ryckman vs. Parkins
    ALBANY,
    Feb. 1833.
    In an action of slander, where the verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for $7000, and the defendant obtained an order to stop proceedings on a case made, the order before argument of the ease was vacated on the application of the plaintiff, there appearing no mitigating circumstances in the case, and nothing to induce suspicion of prejudice, partiality or corruption on the part of the jury.
    The plaintiff having obtained a verdict for $7000 damages in an action of slander, and the defendant having made a case with a view of moving for a new trial, on the ground of the excessiveness of the damages; and having obtained an order from the circuit judge before whom the cause was tried, staying the proceedings until the case could be heard, the plaintiff now, on the facts set forth in the case, and on an affidavit of the great wealth of the defendant, applied for a rule vacating the order to stay the proceedings.
   By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The slander in this case was of a wanton and wicked character, imputing to the plaintiff a crime of the most atrocious nature; and when the great wealth of the defendant is taken into consideration, there is nothing in the case to induce the suspicion of prejudice, partiality or corruption on the part of the jury in finding a verdict against the defendant to the amount of $7000. In McConnell v. Hampton, 12 Johns. R. 234, where a verdict for $9000 was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in an action of false imprisonment, the court ordered a new trial; but in that case there were mitigating circumstances ; here there are none. The order to stay proceedings is therefore vacated, and the plaintiff is at liberty to enter judgment upon the verdict, notwithstanding the case made.