St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-05
HOLD YOUR TONGUES.
If You Don't, Ladies, You'll
Get Your HubbieS Into
Trouble.
MEN HELD RESPONSIBLE
Under the Common Law for
SlanderouS Statements
by Their Wives.
A RULING BY JUDGE OTIS
That to Orally Charge a Man
With Drunkenness is Ac-
tionabie Per Sc.


the ruling holds the husband liable in
an action for damages IN such cases.
The case under consideration was the
damage suit of William Pitt Morgan
against William Kennedy and Esther
Kennedy. his wife. The complaint is
that Mrs. Kennedy maliciously slam
dered the plaintiff and damaged him to
the extent of 5000 by saying in effect
that he was on drunken debanch dur
ing Thanksgiving week. Kennedy de-
INJURED to the complaint on the ground
that he was not liable for SANDER
cast by his wife. Judge OTIS overruled
the demurrer, and added the following
Interesting NEeEnoranduns:
This action Is brought against hus-
band and wife to recover damages Cor
alleged slanderous words of the wife
not, so far as appears, spoken i'll her
husbands presence. The husband de-
murs Oh the ground that no cause of
action is stated as against him.
1t is urged that our married Woman'S
act, sO-cal!ed, eXempts husband from
all liability for the tortS of his wife. lt
is considered that bat for this act such
liability exists. Such was the common
law rule long since recognized and
adopted by our supreme court-viz:
Brazil VS.. Moran, minnesota. 256. The
decisions are not at all uniform as to
the effect Of these married wOman'S
acts, some very respectable courts hold
ing that they operate to exempt the
husband. and Others of equally high
authority holding to the contrary.
These acts, so far as | have observed,
do not contain express provisions tor
such exemption, and when they have
been held to have such effect it has
been the result of judicial construction
of what was intended by the legisla-
ture.
A careful examination of the legisla.
ton had upon the subject in this state
compelS me 10 the conclusion that the
common law rule Of the husbands liza
bility for the torts of his wife has never
been abrogated.
The first act of this kind is chaper6
Of the Revised Statutes Of 1866. After
very materially changing the statues of
A Married woman
and enlarging her rights, powers, duties
and liabilities. it is provided in section
5 that in case of abandonment by her
husband she ''may engage i'll and trans
| act any business or trade in her own
name and SIZE and be sued in the same
manner as thou. h she were unmarried.
n And all contracts made by
her in the usual course Of such business
or trade shall be as valid and binding
on her as ii she were SOLE" aud that
property so acquired by her may be
held and disposed of by her without her
hus band's consent, provided that the
husband shall not be liable for any con-
tract. default, or tort of the wife made,
done or incurred in the course of trans
acting any such business or trade" 1t
necessarily follows from this proviso
that the legislature understood that,
save so far as it is here abrogated, the
common law rule of the husbands liza
biiity for the torts Of his wife should
prevail. By implication such seems to
have been the legislative intent, as
otherwise the proViSo is meaningless.
In 1862 chapter 60 of the Revised
Statutes of 1866 was superseded by
chapter SO of the General Statutes of
1878, and this act, while still further en-
larglng the rights of married women,
aud more clearly defining the property
relations of husband and wife, closed
with section 6, which reads as follows:
"Nothing in this act snail be con-
| strued to affect ante-nuptial contracts
| for settlement, nor to exempt husband
| from liabilities for torts committed by
| his wife"
The legislature thus recognized a sub
| Sisting liability Of the husband for his
wife's torts, thereby giving legislative
construction of the act OF 1866, and eX-
pressly providing that such liability
! should not be impaired or abrogated by
the later enactment of 1869. am re-
luctantly forced to the conclusion that
in this state husbands must respond in
damages for their
Wives Unruly Tongues,
and if they would be relieved from such
thralldom they must appeal to the leg
| iSlatur re and not to the courts.
1t is further strenuously insisted that
the language used did not amount to
! SANDER. The language charged to have
been uttered is as follows:
"He has been drunk throughout
! Thanksgiving week. He has not retired
any night during that week other than
in a state of drunkenness. He has
drunken people in his room. He gets
people in his room and makes them
drunk. He was drunk during the early
hours of the morning after Thanksgiv-
ing"
This in effect charges plaintiff with
having been on prolonged drunken de-
| bauch. Drunkenness under the Schef-
fer law, chapter Is, Laws Of 1889, is a
crime punishable for the first offense by
fine or Imprisonment, and for each
subsequent offense by Imprisonment
only, not commutable by fine. All pub
lie offenses are lndictable in this state.
Chapter 107, section %, General
Statutes of 1879. In West VS.. HaRrohan,
% Minnesota, 2S5. the court says: 'In
an action of SANDER, if the words al.
legged to have been spoken of the
plaintiff. when taken in their plainest
and most natural sense, and as they
would be ordinarily understood. obvi-
ously import the commission of crime
punishable by indictment, such words
are actionable per se."-Citing Wis
consin, 623, Is; Wend, 327, and 1 Min
nesota. 131. IL necessarily follows that
the language here alleged to have been
used, since it charges an indictable Of
tense, is clearly slanderous and action
able per Sc.
But the statute aside. I am of the
opinion that the language referred to
should, in this state at least, be held
aetionable. Whether words are defam.
atory or not depends somewhat upon
the sentiment of the community in
which they are uttered. 1t is true tina