Case Name: Geo. A. Fisher ads. Rotereau & Wife
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1822-05
Citations: 2 McCord 189
Docket Number: 
Parties: Geo. A. Fisher ads. Rotereau & Wife.
Judges: Justices Colcock, Nott, Gantt and Johnson, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 189–191

Head Matter:
Geo. A. Fisher ads. Rotereau & Wife.
To call a person «a thief,” « a bloody thief,” is actionable ; and though die words seem to have been spoken in a passion, yet the Court yould not disturb the vej'dict.
Verdict $400 for the plaintiff.
THIS was an action of slander, brought against the de-i fendant for calling the wife of the plaintiff, “ a thief,” “ a bloody thief,” words uttered by him with some heat, while an altercation was had between him and the said wife of the plaintiff, relative to some liberties taken with a young woman, whom the defendant attempted to kiss. They were accompanied by language and circumstances-which rendered it doubtful whether the defendant had any intention of accusing the wife of the plaintiff of having committed a felony, 'but showing that the words were merely rude and unbecoming expressions.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff; and a new trial 'tyas moved for on the ground, that the words were not uttered in a sense actionable in themselves ; and as no special damages were pretended, the verdict should have been for the defendant.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Richardson
delivered the opinion of the court:
The words charged were proved. It appeared that they were uttered in a verbal altercation between Mrs. Routereau and the defendant, in which, the defendant being irritated, became indecent in his behaviour, and may possibly have meant no charge of felony. Upon this point the strongest testimony was that of Mrs. Gerard, who said she understood the charge of theft, " as blackguard expressions," and not as a charge of felony. Yet she said further, u she believed he meant Mrs. R. had robbed or stolen," but she did not know of what. And finally said " she did not understand the word felony." The charge was repeated three times. The last time, the defendant called Mrs. R. "a bloody thief." There was, perhaps, room also for concluding that th,e words were uttered in heat and passion. But they do ex vi termini import felony, and are slanderous. And whether spoken in another sense or in mere passion, depending upon intention, was the subject of evidence, and was fairly -sub tóitted to the jury, who, having found that the words were spoken slanderously, and this court perceiving no sufficient reason for ordering a new trial, the motion is therefore dismissed.
Hunt £? Bennett, for the motion.
Justices Colcock, Nott, Gantt and Johnson, concurred.
-, contra.