Case Name: NEELANDS v. DUGAN
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1921-04-12
Citations: 100 Or. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEELANDS v. DUGAN.
Judges: McBride, Johns and Harris, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Argued March 16,
affirmed April 12, 1921.
NEELANDS v. DUGAN.
(196 Pac. 1116.)
Libel and Slander — Calling Unmarried Woman a Prostitute not Slanderous Per Se.
1. Charging an unmarried woman with being a prostitute is not slanderous per se.
1. Charging woman with unehastity as actionable per se, see note in 15 Ann. Cas. 1242.
On actionable character of epithets that impute immorality to a woman, see note in 4 L. E. A. (N. S.) 560.
Orally charging a woman with being a whore or prostitute as actionable per se. see note in 11 A. L. E. 669.
From Deschutes: T. E. J. Duffy, Judge.
Department 1.
The first three allegations of the complaint are as follows:
“1. That plaintiff is now and at all of the times hereinafter mentioned has been an unmarried woman.
“2. That on January 6, 1920, in Bend, Deschutes County, Oregon, the defendant, in the presence of divers persons, maliciously spoke to and of the plaintiff the following false and slanderous words:
“ ‘You are nothing hut a dirty, low-down prostitute,’ and ‘You are not fit to speak to or associate with anyone; I got a lot of stuff on you and can name dates. ’
“3. That hy the statement, ‘I got a lot of stuff on you and can name dates,’ defendant meant that he, defendant, could name dates on which this plaintiff had been guilty of lewd, lascivious, and immoral associations and relations with men.”
The pleading concludes with an averment of general damages and demand for judgment.
The Circuit Court sustained a general demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff refused to plead further and a judgment was entered against her, from which she appeals.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Boss Farnham.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. B. S. Hamilton.

Opinion:
BURNETT, C. J.
This case is governed by the parallel case of Barnett v. Phelps, 97 Or. 242 (191 Pac. 502), where the precise question is discussed by Mr. Justice Harris, the precedents collated and a conclusion reached adverse to the plaintiff.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
McBride, Johns and Harris, JJ., concur.