Declez v. Save

Searls, C. This is an action to recover damages in the sum of five thousand dollars for slanderous words [553]alleged to have been spoken by the defendant of and concerning plaintiff.

Defendant had a verdict and judgment, from which judgment, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Objection is made by respondent to the statement on motion for a new trial, in that it fails to contain a sufficient specification of the errors relied upon.

In the view we take of the case, this objection is not of practical importance.

There was such substantial conflict in the evidence that the verdict cannot be disturbed upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.

The main objection to the verdict is, that it is against law, in that it is in disregard of the admissions of the pleadings and the instructions of the court.

The answer is a general denial of each and every allegation of the complaint, and no justification is pleaded.

The contention of appellant is, that the slanderous words are in effect admitted by defendant’s testimony; no justification attempted; there being no dispute as to how the words uttered by defendant were understood by those who heard them, and the court having instructed the jury as to the slanderous character of the language, the verdict is against law.

A verdict in disobedience to the instructions of the court upon a. point of law is a verdict “ against law.” (Emerson v. Santa Clara, 40 Cal. 545; Bunten v. Orient Ins. Co., 4 Bosw. 262.)

The complaint shows that the plaintiff and defendant were directors of an association engaged in publishing a newspaper in Los Angeles.

The association was in possession of a part of Merced Hall as sub-lessees thereof.

Plaintiff by authority of the board of managers or directors, and with the knowledge of defendant, contracted for and procured the construction of a partition through [554]