Case ID: nys_1/html/0337-01.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

Gomez v. Joyce.
    
      (Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
    
    June 20, 1888.)
    Libel and Slander—Words Actionable per Se—Exemplary Damages.
    In an action for slander, it, appeared that plaintiff was engaged as an employer and discharger of workmen for his own employer; that defendant spoke concerning him as follows: “That G-. [meaning plaintiff] is paid by B. to get your work, and I know it; ” [meaning that plaintiff was receiving money belonging to his employers for giving out work;] that defendant said, in answer to a statement of Elaintiff’s employer that he believed plaintiff to be honest, and that defendant would ave to prove him dishonest: “Well,-1 know it, and I can prove it, ” [meaning that he could prove plaintiff to be dishonest;] defendant said: “Yes, he [meaning plaintiff] is a thief, and I can prove it. ” Held, that such words were actionable per se, ana that the jury might allow exemplary damages, as well as damages for plaintiff’s mental disturbance and suffering.
    Appeal from trial term; Truax, Judge.
    This is an action for slander, brought by Edwin Gomez, Jr., against Edward Joyce. Defendant spoke concerning plaintiff as follows: “That G. [meaning plaintiff] is paid by B. to get your work, and I know it, [meaning that plaintiff was receiving money belonging to his employers for giving out work;]” ■ that defendant said, in answer to a statement of plaintiff’s employer that he believed plaintiff to be honest, and that defendant would have to prove him dishonest: ‘ “Well, I know it, and I can prove it,’[meaning that he could prove plaintiff to be dishonest;]” that defendant said: “Yes, he [meaning plaintiff] • is a thief, and I can prove it.” From a judgment rendered under direction of the court, allowing plaintiff six cents damages, he brings this appeal.
    Argued before Sedgwick, C. J., and Freedman, J.
    
      Hector M. Hitchings, for appellant. Thomas F. Maguer, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We think there should be a new trial, with costs to appellant to abide the event, inasmuch as the words spoken are actionable per se, and the jury may give exemplary damages as well as-damages for plaintiff’s mental disturbance and suffering.