Case Name: Wheatley vs. Wallis
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1810-06
Citations: 3 H. & J. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wheatley vs. Wallis.
Judges: The cause was argued before Buchanan, Nicholson. Gantt, and Earle, J. by
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 3
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
COURT OF APPEALS,
(E. S.) JUNE TERM, 1810.
Wheatley vs. Wallis.
Appeal from the General Court. Wheatley brought an action on the case in Kent county court, against Wallis, for slanderous words spoken by the latter of the former. The words, as stated in the declaration, were these — “You,” (meaning the said Wheatley,) “stole forty bushels of wheat and forty bushels of corn of me,” (meaning Wallis). The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial in March 1802, the defendant moved the court to direct the jury, that if they should be of opinion, that the words charged in the declaration were spoken in relation to property in the possession of the plaintiff, as overseer of the defendant, on wages, that then they must find a verdict for the defendant, as no felony could be committed, by the plaintiff, of goods so circumstanced. But the county court, (Tilghman, Ch. J.) directed the jury, that an overseer on wages may be guilty of felony of wheat and corn entrusted to him, as such, by his employer, and consequently, that a charge of stealing such goods was actionable. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him5 he appealed to the general court, where the judgment was reversed at September term 1804, and the appellee appealed to this court > , • ; * ;
In an action of slander by an overseer against his emploj ei\ the words charged were» that the overseer had stolen wheat and corn of the em-pi oyer. Held, that an overseer on wages may bt? guilty of felony of the goods of his employer entrust*» ed to him, as overo seer, and that a charge of stealing such goods is tionabie.
The cause was argued before Buchanan, Nicholson. Gantt, and Earle, J. by
Marlin, for the Appellant, and by
Bit troll and Chambers, for the Appellee;

Opinion:
This Court
reversed the judgment bf the General Court, and affirmed that of the County Court.
JUDGMENT OE REVERSAL REVERSED.