Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1857-12-03
MRS CUNNIEGHAM's SERVANT
SUES A LADY FOR ISLANDER.
THE JURY GIVE HER A YER.
DICT OF S4OO.

An interesting case for slander was tried
10 the Supreme Court ou Saturday. before
Judge GbOIsou. The plaintiff was Mary
MuIligan, formerly a servant in the en-
plOy Of Dr. BuFdell and Mn. Cunningham
in New York, and the defendants were II.
B. Ruggles and wife, the latter dlessma-
ker on Fourth street. The damages we're
lsid at $4,000.
Tie history Of the casa as developed
on the trial, was about as follows: Mary
came from New York to this city with
Mrs. Finuegau, and applied at an intelli-
gehce Office for employment, whore she
met female who recommended her 10 90
To confectionery establishment on Third
street, near Race. She went there accor-
dingly, but after remaining day or two,
Idid not like the appearance Of things about
the house, and left Subsequently she
found empIoymont in the drsssmaking es-
tablshment Of Mrs. Ruggles, on Fourth
street, where she remained between three
and four months, when sOne difficulty oc-
CURED between her and the ia1y Of the
house. The latter, it was in testimony
went into the room OF the shop girls, and
complained Of the ingtatitude of Mary, af-
ter she, the defendent, had taken her from
house Of prostitution, @and doing for her
what no other lady would have done. -
The actionable language was far stronger
than we choose to give it in print. Two
or three of the girls in the store appeared
as witnesses for the plaintiff and testified
as to the particular words used by the de-
fendant,
The testimony for the defence was in
tended to explain the language Of Mrs.
Ruggles-that she did not charge the
complainant with being prostitute her.
self, but that she had recently been en-
ployed in house Of that character, mean.
ing the confectionery establishment on
Third street. A constable was called to
prove the character Of the house, who said
it was much visited by girls of bad repu.
tation. THIS closed the evidence on both
sides.
The Judge charged the jury that the
words alluded to have been usel by Mrs
Ruggies were in themselves actionable;
that any imputation on the chastity of a
woman was slanderous; and the real ques-
ton in the case was. whether the SANDER
Gus sting the law implies to be embraced
within the words, was taken away by the
manner in which they were spoken, or by
other words used in explanation at the time.
A mere epithet of abuse would not be a
SANDER; but while this was the law in ref
erence to words of that description, the
language here complained Of did not ap-
pear to come within the category, but rath-
er conveyed, from the very expression, the
statement of a fac. Taken in any sense
they would at least give the idea that the
plaintiff had been an inmate of such
house as that described, and that defen-
dant had rescued her-s statement which
might make an impression on those who
heard it, when the explanatory crcumstan-
ces would be forgotten. If the words |
could be misunderstood, the party had no |
right to use them. Although, as was
claimed, the plaintiff had sustained no ac-
tual pecunisry damage, as she was imme-
diately employed in respectable families,
she at least sustained the damage arising
from wounded feelings and from the ne
cessity of standing out in her defense, BY
an action at law.
The jury were out some two or three
hours, and returned verdict for the plain
tiff Of S400 damages-a warning to the
female sex to beware of giving too free Ii.
,ense to their tongues.