Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0080-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Caruthers, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS R. HAWS v. ROBERT L. STANFORD.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 137.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1858.
    [This case was previously before the court in 4 Sneed, 520.]
    LIBEL AND SLANDER. Plaintiff guilty of same toward defendant.
    The defendant in an action for a libel or slander cannot defend himself by proving- that the plaintiff had previously libeled or slandered him; for that matter is only g'ood in mitigation of damag-es. [For defenses to action of slander, see Watson v. Nicholas, 6 Hum., 174; Coulter v. Stuart, 2 Yer., 225; Wilson v. Nations, 5 Yer., 211; Lambert v. Pharis, 3 Head, 622; Bell v. Farnsworth, 11 Hum., 608; Hancock v. Stephens, 11 Hum., 507; Birchfield v. Russell, 3 Cold., 228; Hills v. Goodyear, 4 Lea, 237; West v. Walker, 2 Swan, 32; Shirley v. Keathy, 4 Cold., 29, 31. See Code, secs. 5155-5157, notes and references.]
   Caruthers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

There is no error in the rulings of the court, on the questions of evidence, or in the charge in the case to the jury. The defendant in an action for a libel or slander, cannot defend himself by proving that the plaintiff had previously libeled or slandered him; but that matter is only good in mitigation of damages, because of the excitement produced by it.