Case ID: blackf_1/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Holman, J. Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cefret v. Burch.
    A notice given in Daviess county in this state on the 20lh of October, to take depositions in Hamilton county, Ohio, on the 28th of the same month, is insufficient.
    In corhputing the time, in such case, one of the days named must be excluded from the computation.
    Words spoken here, charging a.person -with having committed larceny in another state, are actionable.
    APPEAL from the Daviess Circuit Court. — This was an action of slander, brought by Cefret against Burch, for words spoken in this state, charging Cefret with having stolen hogs in the state of Ohio. Pleas, the general issue and a justification; At the trial, the defendant offered to read some depositions, which were objected to. The ground of objection was, that the notice, — which had been given in Daviess county, in this state, on the 18th or 20th of October, to take depositions in Hamilton county* Ohio* on the 28th of the same month, — was not sufficient. The depositions, however, were admitted. Certain instructions, mentioned in the opinion of the Court, were given to the jury, to which the plaintiff excepted. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
   Holman, J.

The notice is insufficient. The objector, who In this case was the plaintiff, has a right to take the shortest time proved, from the 20th to the 28th, and one of those days should be excluded in the computation, leaving but seven days’ notice, which, from the known distance between the two places, is clearly insufficient. The depositions should have been rejected. The Circuit Court instructed the jury, that if the charge of hog-stealing, set forth in the declaration, was made with reference to a larceny committedin the state of Ohio, the action would not lie. We take the law to he otherwise. To charge' a man with having committed a crime in a sister state, is as injurious to his reputation, and may subject him to the same pains and penalties, as if he were charged with having committed the crime in this state .

Kinney and Judah, for the appellant.

Dewey, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed, and the verdict Set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c. 
      
       Acc. Van Ankin v. Westfall, 14 Johns. R. 233. — Haight v. Morris, 2 Hals. 289. — Shipp v. M’Craw, 2 Murph. 463. Words spoken in another state, if actionable at common law, will support an action here. Aliter, if not actionable at common law, nor shown to be so by statute in the state where spoken, though actionable here by statute. Stout v. Wood, ante, p. 71.