The Market Value of Speech. was quoted at $1,000. One naturally would suppose that the color of the child would add to the value of the remark, yet the words, " Mrs. M— before her marriage had a mulatto child," went at the same figure. Questions involving chastity are the burdens of many slanders and are usually quoted in three and four figures. While a remark that a married woman had " illicit carnal inter course" with a man not her husband, was listed at $750, yet where there was a fuss between neighbors over their children, and compliments were exchanged, among them, "It aint forgotten what you did at Rome city. The conductor that had you out on the island all day is right here. He wjll prove it and so will I," was a bargain-day sale of goods and went for 6 cents. Perhaps the jury resented the bad grammar. It is usually cheaper not to call a man a thief. People do not hunger for the appel lation, juries do not justify the word unless the proof is clear that the party was rightly so called. Just a plain "thief" went for $400, "a damned thief" at $1,000, for of course it was worse to be a damned one than a plain, ordinary, unemphatic one. "A scoundrel, a rascal, a damned rascal, the property he owns he has stolen," was given $300. " He stole a bolt of cloth," went for $670. " You stole my belt, you have stolen my belt, you might as well have stolen my belt, as you broke open two trunks two years ago," was put at one of those fashion able figures of a few cents less than whole dollars — $212.50. The cheapest price seems to be for a charge that one stole cattle and received such cattle knowing them to be stolen, as it went at the bargain price of $1. On the other hand, "Now I want to say something and I want the re porters to get it. The superintendent of streets is a downright thief and I can prove it," went for the top-notch price of $5,000,
37 1
to be upset, however, in the court of last re sort for other errors in the trial than those that involved prices. Arson brings a little "more than an ordi nary figure. " He burned the gin house of A" cost $1,500, and when a landlord said of a woman tenant, " This is twice you have tried to burn us out to get your $1,400 in surance," the charge was $1,200. A re mark charging a similar offense was, however, marked down as low as $200 when it was qualified, " I had every reason to believe that he burnt the barn. From the evidence I had concerning the burning of the barn I be lieved that he had burnt the barn." "He has sworn falsely and I will attend to the grand jury respecting it," brought $250, a charge of being a rascal and of false swearing, $500, a charge of forgery $450, " He was a negro," $500, and " What are you doing with that nine-dollar black mailer here?" $1,300. When one had- valiantly fought for his country and returned with the honors due a veteran, it was extremely disgraceful to have it said, " He lay drunk all the time he was in the army, and in Sherman's March to the Sea he had a negro wench for his waiter and slept with her every night." Of course the jury was shocked at such horrible language, and when it was measured found it footed up a cost of $700. There is one case which is comforting to those who have slanderous moods. The words were, " He stole my dog," and the verdict was for $37. It must have been some other than a common, dirty, yellow mongrel dog. The court of last resort set aside the verdict, for the reason that a dog is not the subject of a larceny, and hence to say he stole a dog was no slander be cause it did not impute to the party some criminal offense involving moral turpitude for which the party could be indicted and
