Case ID: me_63/html/0209-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peters, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfred Stanwood vs. Amherst Whitmore.
    
      Defendant’s wealth — how proved in an action for slander.
    
    In an action of slander, evidence as to the reputation of the defendant for wealth is admissible; hut it seems it should he proved hy generalreputation, rather than hy particular facts.
    On exceptions.
    In this action, for slander in falsely charging plaintiff with forgery, the defendant excepts to a ruling, made in the superior court, requiring him to answer an inquiry as to his wealth, which the justice told thq. jury they might consider.
    
      J. II. Drummond and 8. C. Strout, for the defendant.
    
      Bradbury c& Bradbury and T. M. Griveen, for the plaintiff.
   Peters, J.

The question raised here is settled in Humphries v. Parker, 52 Maine, 502. It was there decided that evidence such as was admitted here could be weighed by a jury. It is therefore proper to receive it.

We think, however, that the wealth of a defendant should be proved by general evidence rather than by particular facts. It is the defendant’s position in society which gives his slanderous statements character and weight. Reputation for wealth, rather than its possession, generally confers position. Therefore the more proper inquiry is as to the reputation of a defendant for wealth. Of course, a presiding justice would have considerable discretion as to the form of a question in such a case, to be exercised according to circumstances. Ingraham, J., in Kniffen v. McConnell, 30 N. Y., 289, says, “it may be objectionable to particularize the defendant’s property, and such evidence should be confined to general reputation as to the circumstances of the defendant.”

The form of the inquiry in this case was not objected to; the objection was rather to the kind of evidence offered.

Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Yirgkn, JJ., concurred.