Court Opinion

ID: 9725546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:52:21.971708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:16.392878
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion.
Wickens, C, J.
— I concur in the results obtained by Judges Prime and Faulconer in their opinions herein.
*196With due appreciation for the illumination cast by these opinions on the whole subject of defamation, I do not find the complaint to state a cause of action in any pleading paragraph thereof. No legal question separates us on the status of the complaint except as to Paragraph III.
The statement there that appellant “slandered” others, in my opinion fails to impute a crime without resort to extrinsic facts. The word “slander” may, as Justice Holmes said of a word generally, . . vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.” At the present time slander has been relegated to the category of a tort.
Criminal slander is practically unknown now. Although our Criminal Code carries a 1921 statute making slander a misdemeanor I am unable to find a reported case under it. I question if any other than a thorough researcher would know that slander might be considered a statutory crime in this state. As words are presently used I would say “slander” does not produce an impression of a crime.
I consider the alleged defamation of Paragraph III to be clear and unambiguous and susceptible only of accusing appellant of tortious action, therefore leaving no factual question for trial.