Bell v. Kelly

[191]

LANG-DON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment against him for $8,000 in an action brought to recover damages for slander. The allegations of the complaint were denied and as a separate defense numerous incidents in the conduct of plaintiff's hotel business were set forth as a justification for some of the slanderous remarks alleged to have been made by defendant.

The complaint contained a number of counts, but the ones upon which the jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff were counts four, six and seven, reading, in part, respectively, as follows: “That on or about the month of August, 1921, at Los Angeles, California, the defendant maliciously, falsely and with the intent of injuring the plaintiff, stated to Mr. Charles H. Magee, as follows: She (meaning Mary Jane Bell, the plaintiff herein) is running a house of prostitution down there (meaning the Winnipeg Hotel) and I am going to get her out under the Bed Light Abatement Act. She is permitting all kinds of immorality and I am going to have the district attorney put her out, and if I can’t get her out one way, I will another.” “That on or about the 1st day of September, 1921, at the city of Ocean Park, California, and while the plaintiff was passing the place of business of the defendant, the defendant called out in a loud tone of voice at the plaintiff, the following: ‘Prostitute.’ ” “That on or about the 1st day of March, 1921, at Santa Monica, California, the defendant maliciously, falsely and with the intent of injuring plaintiff, stated to one Van Tyne: ‘That the plaintiff had stolen from the defendant tables and chairs.’ ”

Since the jury found upon substantial evidence that the foregoing allegations of the complaint were true, we think their finding as to damages is not excessive. Five thousand dollars was given on the fourth count, $2,000 on the sixth, count and $1,000 on the seventh count. The larger amount was given upon the fourth count, probably because the language therein recited tended to injure plaintiff not only personally, but in the conduct and management of her business, which was that of operating a hotel.

In addition to the claim that the damages are excessive, appellant contends that error was committed by the trial court in restricting the time for argument by counsel