Case Name: FLAMINGHAM v. BOUCHER
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-11
Citations: 1 Wright 746
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLAMINGHAM v. BOUCHER.
Judges: JUDGES — COLLETT AND WRIGHT.
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
*PICKAWAY COUNTY,
NOVEMBER TERM, 1834.
JUDGES — COLLETT AND WRIGHT.
FLAMINGHAM v. BOUCHER.
Slander — statute of limitations — notice—aggravation.
On a plea of the statute of limitations in slander, the jury must exclude from view words which are barred by the statute, in determining the plaintiff’s right to recover; but that right established, they may consider the words barred, to show malice and in aggravation of damages.
Slander. Words, you are a thief. Plea, not guilty, and the statute of limitations.
Green and Olds for the plaintiff.
Caldwell and Irvin for the defendant.

Opinion:
COLLETT, C. J.
tto the jiua-y: If the evidence' satisfies you- the-words, were spoken- within a. year before the date of the writ, the plaintiff wi'1'1. have a right to recover;: but in determining that question, under the pleadings, you- should lay out of view all words spoken-more, than a year before the writ. But if the words are proven to have been- spoken within the year, and the plaintiff's right is thus established, you may then-take info.-view words spoken more-than a year, to show the degree of malice which influenced the slanderer and to aggravate the damages.