Court Opinion

ID: 9826223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:36:48.954728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:57.335934
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Woods.
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Fraser, except that I think that the third and fourth exceptions should be overruled, along with the others.
*1003 The third exception is very long, and being fully set out in the opinion of Justice Fraser, need not be repeated. It is true the defendant denied in his answer the slanderous words atttributed to him in the complaint; but after stating his differences with the plaintiff, he uses this language: “All the matters and things above set forth are pleaded, not only in justification of such statements as defendant did make, but in mitigation of any damages to which plaintiff might otherwise appear entitled.” It is conceded by appellant’s counsel that if this could be construed into an allegation that there was justification for the statements attributed to- the defendant in the complaint because they were true, then the portion of the charge set-out in this exception would be correct. I agree with Mr. Justice Fraser that the better construction was that while the defendant denied using' the words imputed to him, yet he was justified in using whatever language he did use. But the allegation was not clear, and it was manifestly understood by the counsel for plaintiff and the Circuit Court as an unqualified plea in justification. This is clear from plaintiff’s request to- charge, as well as the charge itself. Seeing that the Judge misunderstood the pleading and was charging on an issue not made in the answer, it was incumbent on defendant’s counsel to call the Court’s attention to-its mistake. This was not done, and it is well settled that new trials will not be granted in such circumstances.
4 I cannot agree to the proposition contained in the fourth exception that the Court erred in charging that “grafting” is a crime in this State. It is true, that grafting is not mentioned under that name in the statutes of the State, but the term is always understood to mean the fraudulent acquisition of property by using official position, either public or private, for personal gain, at the expense of those to whom the official duty is owing. This is the statutory crime of breach of trust with fraudulent intent in its worst form.
*101I think all the exceptions should be overruled and the judgment affirmed.
The majority of the Court having concurred in overruling all the exceptions, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Messrs. Justices Hydricic and Watts concur.