Case Name: Kowalewski v. Markowski, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-07-09
Citations: 86 Pa. Super. 27
Docket Number: Appeal No. 131
Parties: Kowalewski v. Markowski, Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 27–29

Head Matter:
Kowalewski v. Markowski, Appellant.
Argued April 28, 1925.
Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Before Haymaker, J.
July 9, 1925:
L. J. Korpanty, for appellant. —
Words which constitute an offense must be set out exactly in the complaint and declaration: Young v. Geiske, 209 Pa. 515-519; Jaggard on Torts, p. 551; Johnston v. Tait, 6 Binney, 121.
It is necessary to prove that the translation is correct : Yundt v. Yundt, 12 S. & R. 427; Romano v. De Vito, 191 Mass. 457; Newell Libel & Slander, 4th Ed., 774-348.
In an action of slander a declaration stating the words to have been spoken in the third person is not supported by evidence of words spoken in the second person: 25 Cyc. 486; McConnell v. McCoy, 7 S. & R. 223.
William H. Pratt for appellee. —
Neither of the amendments changed the form of action and are not objectionable: Stoner v. Erisman, 206 Pa. 600.
It is too late to raise an. objection after the case had gone to trial when defendant had not filed a plea: Noble v. Erwin, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 72; Barker v. McCreary, 66 Pa. 162.
Words were actionable per se: Drebin v. Jewish World Publishing Company, 262 Pa. 169; Burke v. Keppel, 49 Pa. Superior Court 590; Klumph v. Dunn, 66 Pa. 141.
Words were clear enough: Wisa v. Lewandowski, 19 W. N. C. 158.
Slander, accompanied by a tortious act arising out of slander, is joinable therewith: Miles v. Oldfield, 4 Yates 423.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Linn, J.,
This appeal is from judgment on a verdict in an action of slander. The words, uttered in the presence of another, imputed want of chastity to the plaintiff. In the statement of claim as originally filed, the words complained of were laid in the third person and iii English. That statement was amended, giving the words in the second person and in a foreign language with their alleged English equivalent. There Was testimony that they were so uttered and understood. The case was submitted to the jury in a charge of which the appellant does not complain. The verdict established the facts as alleged by plaintiff.
Appellant complains that the amendment was permitted after the statute of limitations had run: Stoner v. Erisman, 206 Pa. 600, is against him. He also complains that a verdict was not directed for him; the dispute in the facts had to be settled by the jury. He also relies on the fact that the case was not at issue when it was tried, because he had filed no plea; in Noble v. Erwin, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 72, we held that it was too late to raise that objection after going to trial.
Judgment affirmed.