Barkly

Barkly v. Copeland

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1057·86 Cal. 483·25 P. 1
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 27, 1890No. 13520California2,633 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

— This action was brought to recover damages for slanderous words spoken by defendant, in (as it is alleged) falsely charging the plaintiff, Barlcly, with being interested with Russell Speegle in the larceny of certain cattle, the property of one Thomas Polk, and with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen by Speegle. The defense set up was justification on the ground that the language spoken was true, and certain facts in mitigation were also pleaded. The jury found for the defendant, and from the judgment thereupon rendered, and an order refusing a new trial, this appeal is taken.

The first ground of error relied upon by the appellant is, that the court erred in striking out, upon the defendant’s motion, the answer of the witness Laura Mandeville, in response to the question put by the plaintiff’s counsel, with reference to whether or not she had made a certain statement to one Sam Nelson, at a time when Nelson mentioned to her that the defendant was watching her front door, etc., and in refusing to allow to be answered the plaintiff’s question to the same witness relating to a conversation with Nelson. The question asked was: “ Now, at the time before Nelson and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.