Case ID: scl_12/html/0562-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gantt\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick R. Stokes vs. Stephen Stuckey.
    Where the defendant said of the plaintiff, “ you did steal my brothers cotton and I can prove it,” the Court Held it actionable; nor does it Seem it would have made any difference, if the defendant had alluded to cotton, which the plaintiff had to gin for defendants brother.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Sumter district, Spring, Term, 1822. Slander.
    TChÉ words charged and proved* were “ you did steal my brothers cotton and I can prove it.” The words appeared to have been spoken in relation to some cotton, >vbich had been sent to plaintiff’s gin, by a brother of the defendant.
    A motion was made for nonsuit, on the ground that the words were not actionable, and the motion overruled on the ground that the jury were to judge of the meaning of the expression.
    Verdict for the plaintiff.
    New trial moved for, as the charge was merely of a breach of trust.
    Miller, for the motion.
    
      De Saussure Holmes, contra.
   Mr. Justice Gantt

delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion for a nonsuit was properly overruled. The evidence is by no means certain, to shew that the expression did specifically allude to the circumstance of the cotton carried to the plaintiff’s gin; it was rather an inference of the counsel, than the conclusion of the witness, or judge presiding.

The witness only supposed, and perhaps correctly, that such was the allusion of the defendant, in making use of the expression he did. But although that were the fact, it would not alter the law of the case.

The plaintiff might steal cotton entrusted with him to gin. He might be guilty of such a breach of trust, as would amount to a felony; and this he was charged with having done in the present case.

There is no ground of appeal in this case, and the motion is refused.

Justices Nott, Cokoek, Éichardson and Huger, concurred.