Cain v. Shutt

Schmucker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ' The appellant sued the appellée in the Baltimore City Court for slander. The declaration contained but one count. It averred that defendant, on a day named, at No. 608 East BaT timore street in the city of Baltimore falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning' the plaintiff the words following, that is to say: “You are a thief,” “you are a beat,’" “you are a liar” and “you are a' dead-beat.” The defendant pleaded not guilty. On the trial, of the case at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the Court granted the followiug prayer offered by the defendant: “It appearing from the plaintiff’s own testimony that the language alleged to have been used by the defendant was not used'as imputing a crime to the plaintiff and could not have been so understood by the bystanders the verdict must be for the defendant.” The jury thereupon under the Court’s direction rendered a verdict for the defendant and a judgment was entered thereon from which the present appeal whs taken.' The plaintiff at the trial, after stating that there' had been a dispute of about-two years standing between him and the defendant over the bill for some goods purchased - by him from the latter, testified as follows: “I came to - Baltimore and brought his oil can back that he loaned me to take the oil in.

I brought that can back and asked him how much money did I owe him. He said you k'now. I said I don’t owe you for the oil. He said yes you do.

I said I do not. He said you know devilish well you do. He said you are a thief. -I said no sir I am no thief. He said you are a beat.

I said no sir I am no beat. ■ He said you are a liar and not only that you are a dead beat; he repeated those words several times and I contradicted him several times that I was no beat and no thief.” A Mr. Hopwood at that juncture came into the store and according to the plaintiff’s account the defendant having, gone ³⁰⁶ back of the counter commenced to tell Hopwood that the plaintiff had come in there to beat him out of some money whereupon the plaintiff stepped up to him and said “No I am not trying to beat him out of any money, I am trying to explain that I had already paid him for the oil. He said you are a liar, you are a thief and he repeated it right over again before Mr. Hopwood and then I walked, out. ” The plaintiff further testified that when the defendant applied to him the language complained of there were in the store besides Mr. Hopwood a young clerk about fifteen or sixteen years old and also a gentlemen about fifty-five or sixty-five years old neither of whom were personally known to the plaintiff. Upon cross-examination the plaintiff said that the defendant was angry and acted very ugly when applying the objectionable epithets to him; and he answered •‘yes” to the question whether the language used by the defendant did not relate to the transaction of the non payment of the bill. The plaintiff on re-direct examination testified that on the second day before the one on which the case was tried he was standing in the Court house by the side of his counsel who was engaged in conversation with Mr. R. T. Gill of the defendant’s counsel when the defendant came up and said “I am your man, you have no case, I called him a liar and a thief and I can prove it.” Mr. Gill was put upon the stand by the plaintiff and fully corroborated his account of what the defendant had said at the interview in the Court house.

With this evidence in the case we think the Court below erred in taking the case from the jury. There was clear proof of the application by