William R. Smith, appellant, and Guy Richards, appellee were involved in a Supreme Court case that centered around the issue of whether or not an individual had the right to sue another for damages caused by slanderous words spoken against them. The court found that although there was no evidence of malice on behalf of Mr. Richards when he made his statement about Mr. Smith, it did constitute as defamation because it affected his reputation and character among those who heard him speak these words. As such, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Smith and awarded him damages for injury to his reputation due to this defamatory statement from Mr. Richards

In the case of William R. Smith v. Guy Richards, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an earlier ruling in favor of Richards. He argued that there was no evidence presented at trial to support the lower court's finding that Smith had breached his contract with Richards and thus should be liable for damages as determined by the jury. Furthermore, he noted that even if it could be assumed that Smith did breach his contract, then any damages awarded should have been limited to those actually suffered by Richards due to such breach and not include speculative or punitive damages as were awarded in this case. In conclusion, Justice McLean believed there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for either party and therefore felt compelled to dissent from the majority opinion upholding judgment in favor of appellee Guy Richards