Case ID: nys_92/html/0041-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GAYNOR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(45 Misc. Rep. 454.)
    KUHNE v. AHLERS.
    (Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County.
    December, 1904.)
    1. Slander—Actionable Words—“Swindler.”
    To say of one that he is a swindler, when it is not spoken of him in his-office or calling, is not slanderous.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Libel and Slander,. §§ 68, 95.]
    Action by Paul Kuhne against Simon Ahlers for slander. On motion by plaintiff for new trial on dismissal of the complaint.. Motion denied.
    The words complained of were as follows:
    “Who are you, anyhow? You are a bankrupt and a swindler. I know why you had to leave Berlin and Staten Island. Your children are thieves and were arrested for stealing, and you, Kuhne (meaning plaintiff), are a Goddamned son of a bitch.”
    Walter L. Bunnell, for plaintiff.
    Harold C. Knoeppel, for defendant.
   GAYNOR, J.

It has been settled ever since the case of Savilev. Jardine, 2 H. Black. 531, that to say of one he is a swindler is no slander. The word is classed as one of abuse, merely, like-“rogue” and “cheat,” instead of charging a crime, which is necessary to make oral words a slander when spoken of one in his general character (Chase v. Whitlock, 3 Hill, 139; Odgers, p. 62;. Townshend, § 173, and cases there collected). Casés like Forrest v. Hanson, 1 Cranch, C. C. 63, Fed. Cas. No. 4,943, are not to the-contrary, for there the complaint was that the word was spoken of the plaintiff in his official position as director of a bank; and any words spoken of one in his office or calling of such a character that the law will presume that they injure him therein are a slander per se, whether they impute a crime or not.

The motion for a new trial is denied.