Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama (Volume 31) (Paperback)

Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1859. Excerpt: ... Fuller v. Dean. Eifert v. Sawyer, 2 Xott &McC. 511; Brunson v. Lynde, 1 Root, 354; Paddock v. Salisbury, 2 Cow. 811; Walcott v. Hall, 6 Mass. 514. The case of Commons v. Walters, 1 Por. 323, also auswers the second of the above questions in the affirmative. The case of Bradley v. Gibson, 9 Ala. 406, does not disturb the authority of Commons v. Walters. On the contrary, it impliedly re-affirms the doctrine. True, in the case of Bradley v. Gibson, supra, this court refused to receive evidence of a report that plaintiff had been suspected or accused of a particular offense. Proof that a party had been generally suspected, in the neighborhood, of an offense, is certainly a very different proposition from proof of a report, or general report, that he had been suspected, accused, or even guilty of such offense. There may be a report, or general report, that a party has been guilty of a certain offense; and that report may be so utterly disregarded, as that it does not cause the party to be generally suspected of guilt. The one may be idle rumor, while the other denotes confidence in the truth of the report, which of course would affect the party's general character. It is on this principle alone that the evidence is admissible. We re-affirm the doctrine settled in Commons v. Walters, supra.--2 Greenl. Ev. (6th ed.) 424, note 1, on pp. 421-4; Earl of Leicester v. Walter, 2 Camp. 251; 2 Stark, on Slander, 88, and note pp. 89, 90, el seq.; Williams v. Major, 1 Binney, 92; Middleton v. Calloway, 2 A. K. Marsh. 372; Buford v. McLuny, 1 Nott & McC. 268; Hyde v. Bailey, 3 Conn. 466. The case of Scott v. McKinnish, 15 Ala. 662, is not in conflict with this view. What we have said above, in relation to tbe'introduction of evidence, is decisive to show that the circuit court did not err, eit...