, 1869-07-24

the words. "Yon vtnasn, Juu raseal Jon ehsa.e ~
.4s ,5s ,i1n s:s oa sna
aea ca prs1s II q Sfoa n.e.i 700. % Toa
'n Ss se s1 e1ssf s eSsa 5Sq 'nS 8, Gsn H.
q tho land, tbs deieudanss nav1nf plesded only
tbe general .aue, to render verdict IN favor Of
e the ja,y believe from tho evidence TN, tba
Defendant, kste Eeiton, thcn and the9e. being the
Nne G hela Eeiso0. j., spofe the Words, 81 out
piafnuns declaration, 70 the plalntiG md Of and
concerning him sud his butiness a. merchant, IN
the pse4ence Of Others, such ~osds 10 spoken afp
words are proven to hAss teen spoken pJ q d.
Iendant. the plaintiff = not bound to prove that
tne GnsfGe - aahoioos!y maas nos saaa d.
showing the nfssuce Of express. malice Ua OF
Ahe ruskea the publication Of such words 10 such
aLe u TrsponsibIe Tor lid. He n.tn
Fally aud proItnatelY losing from the act The
real moure by which he or she vas actuatcd. is
Of damages. The iar pEysnrnes The party intend-
ed the Injury which the tlahdefous worts aru mt
urs!ly calculated 70 produce All claim for more
than nominal dAmsEes u any. y FA,red md sur
rendered " plaintiff, and the tnry, though they
msy nnd toT Plalnt!G. can ALLOW 10 more
u e Il s T. aags
herein, tie Law impl1es that tbs party uttertnG
them va aeinated BY malice. and this presump-
proved by, eTidetce that the party uttertnR the
words was In heat and passion at the time the
words were 80 spoken When the speaklng Of such
korla IN such nauntr is proven, the law implies
ulalNc, ehc1ler the speaker expected TO be b.
Ieved or not: 1lat Il, Il they were spoken To
plainun In relation 10 his hostness Is . mer-
chant.
q II the Jury believe from tns evidence th1t
ne defendant, Kate Nelson, spoke 70 tic p1alntln,
Tess and trade as merchant the plaintiff then aud
there being merchant, aud engaged In t1e b0sl-
ness q merchant NJ yora. You villain yoa
ca1 and q cbsa1sr, - Or .s&oo arc cheaier, OF
"You chcateE," or il You rascal, " aud aYou vi.
IAN" or " You' rascal, and / can prove Il, !" or
ensattr md 0 p1 'n ySa ,J yea
the laid, the Hotus SO spoken are nctionable
wcr,ls aud tho Jury are bs'und to nui the defend
sss s Il order M eGhe 5e
speaking u such words III such manner.
And the following Instructions for the de-
!. Before the jury CAD nnd verdict for the
plaintiff, for rolnual damages, even, 1ne5 must be-
lese That II Il proven not only that tue defendant,
tha1 the tIose them Of md concerning the bus!-
Dcss Of p!atnt1n, as merchant, and charged him
with dishonesty IN th1t business 49, 49,
9. hat It Is not Sufficient 10 entIfe the ptAlotIH
10 Te:cos er 70 show that be WAS ! merchant, ami
that kn:e Nelson spoke OF him The words You
WoSs ae proven bss nasi j. faer sosa
that the @orcs we're Intended 10 accuse hun OF
dshohe-ty In hia ccalngB a. 4 merchant
grtcra11y "You villain. you rasca you cneater Il
the words, a8 used, only inputed dishonesty to
him GENERALLY. and are not applied 10 him In his
/. II Tue jury believe, from the evidence, that
the plaintiff falsely accused Mra. Nelson and Mrs.
niiiug the beaie xHh Walef Ia order % prove shAt
aareo bin why be ssid 10, md ho falsely told them
he had teen told 10, whea In truth and IN fact he
had been told no ouch thing, but had only been
tcld that they had talked about cologne bottle:
II merely In rrferEnce 70 those statemsnu Of hls,
and not In relation 70 his busl1ess rs merchant,
Mn Eelson called him villain, rascal and i
chester, that would not enahlo HIN 10 u1lnt&!n
this action. even though be was merchant At tue
tine, and eyen though htA business as merchant
WAS Injured By the speaking Of inc words
& II the tutJ beiiere. from the eG1denct, that
pann1 did Eaks siaie.nsnu as which we're ln!as1oas
70 By her TO Know who told him the stuly and be
ea}d he hAd been told so, when be had not and
refused 70 gre the pane o. :. his Informant. bat
Truth he had no Informant to give, and ehs; In
reference to those statements and not In relation
to biz business as merchant, called him rascal,
villain, and cheatet, that Ia not sumclent 70
support this action
a;Mthe jury believe, from the evidence, that
cnpt5ing cologne from bottle and nlung 1t With
MsteF Sith Intent so tn1arc hn, In, n ais business
eheascr, intending thereby only 70 express her
opinion Of him Is man generally. and not In re-.
lat1on TO his business as merchant, tais would
not Support an ACTON, even .thoaEh plaintiff Has
seons sas 1ozas % p1ored j aas aase'!l .npats aH
dishonesty to pAlnt0 IN ma particular nuslnesa a.
merchant: nnd II u NOT eGonkn % sustain tals
action that the words proren tupute dishonesty
10 the plaintiff 2eneE11J, oal 40 nor 9pectncauy
charge him Win oishonesty In his business as
nefchaul 49,.
7. The plaintiff Is bound to show bJ prepon-
lefxncc Of proof that the Words spoken by KITE
Nsson Mha'syss tnsy TeEs, ms5e aSsaa{ ia intsad,
ed 10 charge hin Win di1nohcstJ IN n!H bnslheAs
dealings as merchant heforo he can recover pon-
inal damages; and y there Il Jost as macn fea-
soh % be1iese, ilnna nc es'oence InaE tne vera
pIoren tne{ t IN NJ 9Wy !9teraea .n 70 70
lhPute dlshones!y 10 nIm genelh4y, N man, ot