Case ID: ny-st-rep_39/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Courtney, Resp’t, v. Julius Mannheim, App’lt.
    
      (City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,,
    
    
      Filed June 22, 1891.)
    
    Slander—Words spoken in heat op passion—Mitigation op damages.
    To say to a person, “ You are an Irish whore,” is slanderous per se, and it is no defense that the words were spoken in the heat of passion and vituperation, and not intended to imply a want of chastity, though these facts could he considered in mitigation of damages.
    Appeal from judgment of trial term.
    
      Magner & Hughes, for app’lt; Dailey & Bell, for resp’t
   Per Curiam.

—This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged slander. The plaintiff charged in the complaint that the defendant, in the presence of divers persons, used-the following words of and concerning plaintiff: “You are an Irish whore.” On the trial, the defendant denied that he spoke to the plaintiff the words alleged. Plaintiff testified that the words wére spoken in the presence of her two daughters. The question of fact was passed upon by the jury, who found for the plaintiff.

We think that the learned judge charged the jury properly that the word “whore” is slanderousper se, and that the"attending circumstances, namely, the heat of passion and vituperation, constituted no defense, but could be considered in mitigation of damages. The counsel for defendant requested the court to charge that if the defendant did not intend to imply a want of chastity to the plaintiff, the jury should find for the defendant. This request was refused, and properly, for two reasons; first, the law implies that the words spoken were used in their ordinary meaning, and, second, the defendant had denied that he had spoken the words.

The counsel made no request for an instruction to the ]ury that if all the persons present understood, from facts in their knowledge, that the word spoken was simply as vituperation, and not with the intent to imply that the plaintiff was immoral; if he had the question which is now sought to be raised would be in the ease. ;

Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed, with costs. I

Clement, Ch. J., and Van Wyck, J., concur.