Baker v. Young

• Decision Date: 30 April 1867
• Citation: 44 Ill. 42,1867 WL 5091,92 Am.Dec. 149
• Parties: LUDWIG BAKER and CAROLINE BAKERv.AUGUSTA YOUNG.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

44 Ill. 42

1867 WL 5091 (Ill.)

92 Am.Dec. 149

LUDWIG BAKER and CAROLINE BAKER

v.AUGUSTA YOUNG.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1867.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. BENJAMIN R. SHELDON, Judge, presiding.

Augusta Young brought an action on the case for slander, in the Circuit Court, against Ludwig Baker, and Caroline Baker, his wife. The declaration averred, that the plaintiff was an unmarried woman, and that Caroline Baker falsely and maliciously spoke these words: “'Gusta Young is in the family way, and Rink and his wife took her to a Chicago doctor to have the child worked off.” Also, that “'Gusta Young was with child, and that Rink and his wife took her to a Chicago doctor to have the child worked off.” There were other words charged, but, not being proved, they are omitted. Defendants filed the general issue denying that she spoke the words, upon which issue was joined. The venue was afterward changed to Stephenson county.

A trial was had by a jury at the September Term, 1866. On the trial Mrs. Snyder testified, that she heard Caroline Baker, one of the defendants, say, “Augusta Young was in the family way by Tom Beal.” William Snyder testified that Mrs. Baker said, “Augusta Young was in the family way. 'Gusta Young is in the family way by Tom Beal. Rink and his wife had taken her to Chicago to have the child worked off.” That Mrs. Snyder said she pitied them, but Mrs. Baker said that she did not; “that she rejoiced in it; that they were a high minded set any way, and it would bring them down a peg or two.” Mrs. Snyder states substantially the same in reference to Mrs. Baker saying, that she rejoiced at the occurrence of which she had spoken. There was other evidence as to what was said, and as to the feelings of witnesses, etc.

Defendants moved the court to exclude the evidence because it varied from the language charged in the declaration. The court overruled the motion and defendants excepted.

Among others, the court below gave these instructions:

“The jury are further instructed, that all the words laid in the declaration need not be proven to maintain the action, unless it takes them all to constitute the slander, and if they believe from the evidence that a sufficient number of the words laid in the declaration to amount in their common acceptation to a charge of fornication against the plaintiff, have been proved to have been spoken by the defendant Caroline Baker, then they must find for the plaintiff.”

“The jury are further instructed that in actions for slander the law implies damages from the speaking of actionable words, and also that the defendant intended the injury the slander is calculated to effect, and the jury, in case they find a verdict of guilty, are to determine from all the facts and circumstances in the case, what damages ought to be given, and are not confined to mere pecuniary loss or injury.”

To the giving of which said instructions and each of them, of the said plaintiff and appellee respectively the said defendants and appellants then and there excepted.

Defendants asked instructions involving propositions the reverse of those contained in these instructions, which the court refused to give, and they excepted.

The jury returned this verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendants guilty, and assess the damages at $800.”

Defendants thereupon entered a motion for a new trial, and also in arrest of judgment, which were overruled by the court, and a judgment was rendered on the verdict. Defendants bring the case to this court on appeal, and ask a reversal, because the court below refused to exclude appellee's evidence; that the court erred in giving appellee's instructions; in refusing to give appellants' instructions, and in overruling the motions for a new trial, and in arrest, and in rendering judgment on the verdict.

Messrs. GOODWIN & WILLIAMS, for the appellants.

Messrs. BARGE & HEATON, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

In actions for slander, the plaintiff must prove the language laid in the declaration, or so much, at least, as fully proves the charge. Equivalent words in meaning will not be sufficient. It is true, that all of the words in the sentence need not be proven, if those which are proved fully establish the slander. If, however, other words not laid are proved, which limit or change the meaning of those counted on, the action will not be sustained. If all the words laid are necessary to constitute the slander, then they must be proved as laid. Sandford v. Geddis, 15 Ill. 228; Patterson v. Edwards, 2 Gilm. 720; Williams v. Odell, 29 Ill. 156.

The words relied upon as having been proved, are contained in the second count, and are these: “'Gusta Young was in the family way, and Rink and his wife took her to a Chicago doctor to have the child worked off.” “'Gusta Young is in the family way, and Rink and his wife took her to a Chicago doctor to have the child worked off.” Mrs. Snyder testifies that Mrs. Baker stated that, “Augusta Young was in the family way by Tom Beal.” Wm. Snyder testified that she stated, “'Gusta Young is in a family way;” “'Gusta Young is in a family way with Tom Beal;” Rink and his wife had taken her to Chicago to have it...