Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0746-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Collett, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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^ right to recover; but that right established, they may consider the woids barred, to show malice and in aggiavation 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.

tó the jury. If the evidence satisfies you the words were spoken within a year before the date of the writ; the plaintiff will 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 into view words spoken more than a year, to show the degree of malice which influenced the slanderer and to aggravate the damages.'