Kedrolivansky v. Niebaum
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Slander—Words Imputing Want of Chastity. —The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged slander. The complaint averred that the defendant said of and concerning the plaintiff, that “ she was a bad woman, and that you had better have nothing to do with her case, as it is a very bad one; that she had not lived with her husband for two years previous to his death, and that she was the cause of her husband’s death; that she had driven him to drinking, and that her husband fell while drunk, and was killed.” It was further alleged that the words signified, and were understood by the hearer to mean, that the plaintiff had deserted her husband, and had, prior to his death, led an unchaste life, and had become enciente while living apart from him, and that sucht bad conduct on her part drove him to drinking, and caused his death. Held, that the complaint stated a cause of action.
Id. —Meaning of Ambiguous Words—Question for Jury.—In such a case, the words used being ambiguous, their meaning is for the jury to determine.
Belcher, C. C. This is an appeal by the defendant from an order granting the plaintiff a new trial.
The action is for slander, alleged to have been spoken of and concerning the plaintiff by the defendant in the presence and hearing of a Mrs. Goodall.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the widow of Paul Kedrolivansky, who died at San Francisco on the 19th of June, 1878, a subject of the Russian government, and the mother of six children, the youngest born to her on the 18th of September, 1878, and that she is in good standing and reputation, and is entitled, under the laws of Russia, to a pension of $112.50 per month [217]for fifteen years; that being poor and destitute, with six children on her hands to support and educate, she applied to the Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society of San Francisco for assistance, and thereupon Mrs. Goodall was authorized to visit the family of plaintiff, which she did on the 15th of November, 1879; that Mrs. Goodall, while visiting the family of plaintiff, saw there some of the children, and particularly the youngest, and immediately thereafter, in consequence of information received from plaintiff, went to the office of defendant “to ascertain, if possible, why the pension of plaintiff was not paid according to custom and the laws of the government of Russia”; and that the defendant then and there, in the presence and hearing of Mrs. Goodall, spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff as follows:—
“That said plaintiff was a bad woman, and that you had better have nothing to do with her case, as it is a very bad one; that she (said plaintiff) had not lived with her husband for two years previous to his death, and that she (said plaintiff meaning) was the cause of her husband’s death; that she had driven him (her said deceased husband) to drinking, and that her husband fell while drunk, and was killed.”
It is then alleged that these words signified, and were understood by Mrs. Goodall to mean, that the plaintiff had deserted her husband, and had, prior to his death, led a dissolute and unchaste life, and had become enciente while living apart and separate from her husband, and that such bad conduct on the part of plaintiff drove her husband to drinking, and caused his death.
The defendant answered, denying, among other things, that he spoke of and concerning the plaintiff as charged in the complaint, or that he spoke any words which were slanderous or untrue.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)