Matts v. Borba

California Supreme Court Jun 26, 1894 No. No. 15,381Published

Before: Haven, Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding the defamatory meaning of the word "valhaca" and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in managing the conduct of counsel.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the word "valhaca" was used to impute a want of chastity.
Whether the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiffs to introduce evidence in rebuttal that could have been presented in their case-in-chief.
Whether the improper remarks made by plaintiffs' counsel to the jury regarding costs warranted a new trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“That the word “valhaca” is capable, without greatly distorting some of the definitions given to it, of expressing the imputed meaning, is reasonably clear, and the evidence in this regard is sufficient to support the verdict.”

“All agree that it is within the discretion of the trial court to admit additional evidence in support of the plaintiff’s case after the defendant has rested.”

Synopsis

Slander—Imputing TTnchastity.—In an Action for Slander, for calling plaintiff “valhaea,” plaintiff and several witnesses (all illiterate Portuguese) testified that the word was in common use among the Portuguese, and meant “whore.” Defendant’s witnesses, some of whom were educated Portuguese, testified that the term “valhaea” did not mean “unchastity,” but that it meant “knave, rogue, crafty,” and that the word “puta” was in common use, meaning “whore.” Held, sufficient to support a verdict that defendant intended to impute unchastity to plaintiff.

Slander—Evidence.—After Defendant had Examined his witnesses, and rested, plaintiff gave evidence that the word “valhaea” meant “whore.” Held, that, if the evidence was improperly admitted, defendant was not prejudiced, there being already sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Trial—Remarks of Counsel.—It was Agreed That the Cause should be submitted without argument, but plaintiff’s attorney said: “I want to make this statement to the jury: That plaintiffs, having commenced this case in the superior court, cannot recover any costs unless they recover $300 damages.” And the court said, “You must not make those statements.” Held] that, if defendant thought the court had not sufficiently informed the jury not to consider the remarks, he should have asked for an instruction to that effect, and that a new trial would not be granted on account of such remarks.

HAYNES, C. Action for slander. The plaintiffs had judgment, and this appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The parties plaintiff and defendant are Portuguese, and the slanderous words are charged to have been spoken of and [692]concerning the plaintiff, Catherine Matts, in the Portuguese language, in the presence and hearing of persons who understood that language, to wit: “‘Valhaca! quando e que es méus homes foram enhar bariga de carne a tua casa.’ Plaintiffs aver that said words signify, and are understood to mean, in the English language, ‘You whore! when my men went and filled their bellies with meat at your house, ’ and the said Portuguese words were so understood by the said persons in whose presence and hearing they were spoken; that the defendant meant by said words so spoken to impute to the plaintiff Catherine Matts a want of chastity. ’ ’ The answer denied speaking the said words, or any of them, or any other words meaning to impute a want of chastity, or that said words, or any of them, signify, or are understood to mean, “you whore,” or “whore,” or were so understood by any person who heard them. Both the plaintiffs and several other witnesses testified to the speaking by defendant of the Portuguese words set out in the complaint, and that the word “valhaca” has the meaning attributed to it in the complaint, some of the witnesses defining it to mean a “private whore; that is, a married woman who is doing it on the sly”; that “the word is in common use among the Portuguese to express a woman who has fallen so low as to be common with everyone, even without pay”; while the deféndant and about the same number of witnesses, testified that the words charged were not spoken. All the witnesses in chief on the part of the plaintiff were illiterate, and, with the exception of Mrs. Matts, could not read or write, and she only to a limited extent. The defendant, in addition to the witnesses who were present, and who testified, as positively as witnesses can to a negative fact, that the words were not spoken, called six intelligent Portuguese, two or three of whom had received a collegiate education in Portugal, who testified that “ ‘valhaca’ means ‘knave, rogue, rascal, scamp, scapegrace, crafty, cunning’ ”; that it never means “unehastity”; that they never heard it used to impute unehastity; that the word in common use, having the meaning of the English word “whore,” is “puta”; and that “meretriz” and “prostituta” are also used to express the same meaning.

Appellant, in his statement on motion for a new trial, specified as one of the grounds thereof that the evidence was

Matts v. Borba

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief