Bigner v. Hodges
Mississippi Supreme Court
Bigner v. Hodges, 82 Miss. 215 (Miss. 1903)
Calhoon
Bigner v. Hodges
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion, of the court.
It is questionable whether any amendment of the declaration was needed, but, if it was, the¡ allowance of it was proper. We think there was no material variance between the allegata and probata. The words are practically synonymous.
' The doctrine of privileged communications cannot afford shelter. The mayor and the marshal were not the only persons to whom the words were spoken, and, even as to them, the defendant himself testified that he met them casually and made his statement to them. It is difficult to believe that it was for the public good he designed the communication. The jury did not believe that it was, and the verdict for $150 is not excessive.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James L. Bigner v. James Hodges
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Slander. Allegata and probata. Variance. An allegation in a declaration for slander that defendant had falsely spoken and published of and concerning plaintiff, a butcher, that he, the plaintiff, “had butchered and sold to his patrons a steer affected with a loathsome disease and which at the time had a running sore or cancer on its leg,” is supported by testimony showing that defendant had so spoken and published of and concerning plaintiff, the following words: “He had butchered and sold a steer which was unfit for use, because it had a running sore on its leg,” and the variance was immaterial. 2. Same. Prvmlege comrrmmcation. Statements to officers. Statements causually made to officers, not for the public good, ■ which were also made to other persons, are not privilege communications.