Cahill v. Murphy
Before: Fitzgerald
Synopsis
Slander—Damages—Mental Suffering — Disgrace to Plaintiff’s Family. — Mental suffering entitles the plaintiff to compensation in an action for slander, and such suffering may he increased and the damages consequently enhanced by the fact that the members of the plaintiff’s family would suffer by ^reason of the disgrace imposed upon the plaintiff by the slanderous charge.
Id. — Evidence — Ages of Plaintiff’s Children—Dependence for Support.—In an action for slander, it is competent, upon the question of damages, to prove the number and ages of the plaintiff’s children; but not that they are dependent upon the plaintiff for support.
Id. —Slanderous Charge of Arson — Admission of Incompetent Evidence— Harmless Error.—In an action for damages for slander, where the complaint alleged and the evidence showed that the slanderous words consisted in charging the plaintiff, falsely and maliciously, with an attempt to commit the crime of arson, and the evidence showed that the plaintiff was a defenseless woman with four children, three of whom were minors, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for twelve hundred dollars, although the prayer of the complaint was for ten thousand dollars, the error of the court in permitting the plaintiff to show how many of her children were dependent upon her for support cannot be said to be error prejudicial to the defendent, in view of the enormity of the charge, the situation of the parties, and the small amount of damages awarded.
Fitzgerald, C. This is an action for slander. The complaint alleges, in substance, that on or about the twenty-first day of September, 1889, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff, with her children, occupied certain rooms in a hotel of which the defendant was owner and proprietor; that one of these rooms was situated on the ground-floor of the hotel, and used by her for the purpose of carrying on and conducting a general merchandising business; that on said last-mentioned date, the soot in the chimney leading from the room used as a store became ignited, causing an alarm of fire to be given; and it is further alleged, upon information and belief, that the fire was communicated to the soot in the chimney from a fire in the stove situated in said store.
The slanderous words out of which this action arose are alleged to have been falsely and maliciously spoken by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff, and are laid as follows: “This is twice you [the plaintiff meaning] have tried to burn us [the said hotel meaning] out to get your fourteen hundred dollars insurance. But I will report you [the said plaintiff meaning] to the insurance company to-morrow morning, and have your insurance taken away from you.”
It is further alleged that the defendant, by the use of these words, intended to convey the meaning that the plaintiff willfully and maliciously communicated the fire to the soot in said chimney, and that by so doing she was guilty of an attempt to commit the crime of arson, and that they were so understood by those in whose [31]presence they were uttered, to the damage of plaintiff’s character and business in the sum of ten thousand dol= lars.
A demurrer was interposed to the complaint, which, upon the grounds stated, was properly overruled.
Defendant thereupon answered, specifically denying the material allegations of the complaint, and upon the issues thus joined, plaintiff had verdict and judgment for twelve hundred dollars.
The only error complained of, which we deem it necessary to consider, relates to the ruling of the court upon defendant’s objection to the following question propounded to plaintiff on her examination in chief as a witness, and after she had testified, without objection, that she had “ a family of four children.”
“ Q. How many of them are dependent upon you for support?”
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)