R. B. STUTTS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
R. B. Stutts was convicted of defamation under Florida law for falsely and maliciously imputing a want of chastity to an unmarried woman. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting arguments that the indictment was defective for using "saying" instead of "speaking" and that the statute required publication to multiple persons.
The indictment was sufficient. The words "saying" and "speaking" are synonymous in this context. The statute does not require that the imputation be made in the hearing of more than one person or be repeated to a third party; imputations made to even a single person suffice. The evidence established both the false statements and malice.
“The word "saying" used in connection with the words "in the presence of and in the hearing of one Asa Poston" means the same as "speaking."”
Establishes that the indictment's use of "saying" rather than "speaking" does not render it defective.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 7, 1904, in Calhoun County, Stutts allegedly told Asa Poston that Eulalie Benton, an unmarried woman, was "nothing more than a common pros…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malice cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J:
This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction in the Circuit Court for Calhoun county upon an indictment charging that R. B. Stutts in Calhoun county on December 7th, 1904, “did falsely and maliciously impute a want of chastity to one Eulalie Benton, an unmarried woman, by then and there in the presence of and in the hearing of one Asa Poston, falsely and maliciously saying of and concerning her, the said Eulalie Benton, that she, the said Eulalie Benton, was nothing more than a common prostitute,, and that she, the said Eulalie Benton, had given birth to a bastard child.”
The errors assigned are the denial of the motion to quash the indictment and the refusal to grant a new trial.
It is urged that the indictment is fatally defective because the word “saying” is used instead of the word “speaking,” and because it is not alleged that the imputation of want of chastity was made in the presence and hearing of more than one person or that the person in whose presence the imputation of a want of chastity was made had repeated it to a third person.
Section 1 of Chapter 3460 acts of 1883 as brought forward in the Revised Statutes of 1892, is as follows: “2419. Defamation. — Whoever speaks off. and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously, imputing to her a want of chastity; shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.” The charge is that the accused committed the defamation or the imputation of a want of chastity “by then and there in the presence of and in the hearing of one Asa Poston, falsely and maliciously saying of and concerning her the said Eulalie Benton,” etc.
The word “saying” used in connection with the words “in the presence of and in the hearing of one Asa Poston” means the same as “speaking.”
The statute does not require that the false and malicious imputation of a want of chastity in a woman shall be in the hearing or presence of more than one person or that it shall be repeated to a third person to constitute the offense.v The indictment is in language substantially the same or of the same import as that required by the statute and is sufficient, since it fully acquaints the accused with “the nature and cause of the accusation against him as required by the constitution. Jackson vs. State, 26 Fla. 510, 7 South. Rep. 862; Roberts vs. State, 26 Fla. 360, 7 South. Rep. 861; Burnham vs. State, 37 Fla. 327, 20 South. Rep. 548; Brass vs. State, 45 Fla. 1, 34 South. Rep. 307; Reyes vs. State, 34 Fla. 181, 15 South. Rep. 875.
The only other contention is that no malice was proven. There is ample testimony that the accused imputed a want of chastity to the named woman-, and the testimony warranted the jury in finding that such imputation was falsely made without any justification or excuse, from which malice could be inferred.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J. and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pell v. State, 97 Fla. 650 (Fla. 1929)…ature and cause of the accusation against him, see [*668] Sec. 11, Declaration of Eights, and is not vague or indefinite so as to mislead the accused or expose him to the danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. See 58 Fla. 54; 74 Fla. 200; 52 Fla. 110; 58 Fla. 74; 51 Fla. 44; 51 Fla. 82. The decision in the Simmons case, 32 Fla. 387, 13 So. R. 896, was disapproved in 52 Fla. 18, 24. The form of indictment used in this case was approved in 94 Fla. 32, 45, 113 So. R. 630, 635, and is equivalent to…
-
Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1916)…in this case charges the offense substantially in the words of the statute. Section 3961 Gen. Stats, of 1906, Compiled Laws of 1914; Schley v. State, 48 Fla. 53, 37 South. Rep. 518; Dickens v. State, 50 Fla. 17, 38 South. Rep. 909; Stutts v. State, 52 Fla. 110, 42 South. Rep. 51; 12 R. C. L. p. —. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a demurrer, a motion to quash, a writ of error or an appeal or certiorari. Ex Parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 South. Rep. 659; Ex Parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 2…
-
Taylor v. State, 67 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1914)…o substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.” Secs. 11 and 12 Bill of Rights; Secs. 3961, 3962 Gen. Stats. of 1906; Johnson v. State, 58 Fla. 68, 50 South. Rep. 529; Mills v. State, 58 Fla. 74, 51 South. Rep. 278; Stutts v. State, 52 Fla. 110, 42 South. Rep. 51; Roberts v. State, 26 Fla. 360, 7 South. Rep. 861; Jackson v. State, 26 Fla. 510, 7 South. Rep. 862. There was no error in denying the motions to quash and in arrest of [*129] judgment in. this case. In Hamilton v. State, 30 Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reyes v. State, 34 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1894)
- Brass v. State, 45 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1903)
- Roberts v. State, 26 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1890)
- Burnham v. State, 37 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1896)
- Abe Jackson v. State, 26 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1890)