Case ID: stew_1/html/0042-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE SAFFOLD", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adams v. Ward.
    In action for words charging larceny, and issues on pleas of “not guilty and justification,” defendant may give evidence tending to prove a particular larceny of the same description as charged by the words.
    In the Circuit Court of Madison county, Adams declared against Ward for saying of him, “he has stolen hogs, and I can prove it.” . There were several counts in the declaration, in which the form of the accusation alleged to have been made, was varied. Verdict and judgement for the plaintiff, for one cent damages and one cent costs.
    On the trial, the defendant gave in evidence, that stray hogs had some time before ranged about ten miles from plaintiff’s residence, and one Brown, in whose neighbour-hood they were, inquired of plaintiff if he had lost such hogs, and he said that he had not. About twelve months afterwards, plaintiff went to the house of Wm. Watts, .in the neighbourhood where the stray hogs were, and inquired for certain stray hogs, which he said he had purchased, describing the marks. Watts told him he knew the marks of said stray hogs well, and that they were not the marks which he described. Plaintiff went in pursuit of said strays, and employed.a lad who said he knew them, to go with him; they found the strays, and plaintiff then said that he had lost the stray hogs himself, not that he had purchased them; .that the marks of the strays found, corresponded with his mark, except that the mark which should have been in the right ear was in the left, and that which should have been'in the left ear was in the right, that he had marked them himself by mistake, as he supposed, in the wrong ears. It was proved that plaintiff said he recognized one particular hog, a stray which Brown swore he had twelve months before described to plaintiff as a remarkable one, when the plaintiff answered that he had lost none, and that plaintiff when viewing said hogs, said that he had a great mind to take them any how, but afterwards remarked, that they were not his, and-left the hogs, This examination of the strays took place about Christmas, the usual pork killing season; the hogs of a proper quality and size for bacon, shortly after disappeared, and had not since been seen in the neighbour-bood. The plaintiff offered no evidence of bis having put chased any stray hogs. By his counsel, he moved the court to exclude the whole of this testimony, as not being within the issues joined. The Court overruled the motion and admitted the testimony to go to the jury ; to which the plaintiff excepted, and here assigned the matter of the bill of exceptions as error.
    JNPKinley, Hopkins and UhquhaRT, for plaintiff.
    Clay, M‘Cltjng and Brandon, for defendant in error.
   JUDGE SAFFOLD

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In actions of this nature, it is a general rule, that the defendant unde< the general issue cannot give evidence of the truth of the charge made bv the words ; that if he would insist on its truth, he must bv pleading a justification, give notice to the plaintiff, that on the trial, he will attempt to sustain the charge. Flow far proof of suspicious circumstances not amounting to justification are admissible under the plea of not guilty, is a question which does not appear to be well settled, and one in which there appears to have been great contrariety of decisions in the courts of the several States of the Union. But this case does not require a decision of this question; the defendant had plead justification; issue was taken on this plea and no objection was made to its form. The evidence appears to have been relevant, and whethei it created a slight or violent presumption of the truth of the chai ge, it was equally admissible. Let the judgement be affirmed. 
      
      
        .^?rSSl ■Peaka