Beatty v. Warren

DESMOND, J.,

pro tem.

The defendant appeals from a judgment aggregating $500, awarded plaintiff in an action based upon slanderous statements alleged to have been made by the defendant.

The complaint alleged in the first count that the defendant, in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Miller, used the following language: “Elmo Beatty stole thirty-five dollars from a woman down the street, while delivering groceries there. There was One Hundred dollars laying there, and he -took Thirty-five Dollars.”

Another count alleged that the following language was used by defendant in the presence of Mr. Thomas A. Smith: “Tour son is going to lose trade, because he has a man employed that is a thief. He went down and delivered some groceries to a lady near my house. The lady was going away and he was delivering the goods there and when she went away she left a purse in the dresser containing thirty-five dollars. When she returned the purse was lying on the dresser empty. The thirty-five dollars was gone and there was nobody in the house but Elmo Beatty, and nobody could have taken the thirty-five dollars but Beatty.”

Although it was alleged that the language above quoted was uttered by the defendant maliciously, there was no prayer in the complaint for exemplary damages. The defendant by her answer did not set up justification or privi

[575]

lege, but denied all' the material allegations of the complaint bearing upon the alleged slander. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $250 on each of said counts.

There can be no doubt that the statements referred to were slanderous

per se,

and the jury finding on evidence which from the record seems amply sufficient that they were uttered by the appellant, was bound to assess damages in an amount which would fairly compensate the plaintiff for the injury suffered by him.

(Childers

v.

San Jose Mercury Printing & Pub. Co.,