Bedtkey v. Bedtkey
Decision Date | 12 February 1902 |
Citation | 15 S.D. 310,89 N.W. 479 |
Parties | BEDTKEY v. BEDTKEY. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, McCook county.
Action by Helen Bedtkey against Edward Bedtkey. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Frank Van Wagenen and M. A. Butterfield, for appellant. E. H. Wilson, for respondent.
In this suit for slander, defamatory matter actionable per se is charged in the complaint as having been spoken by appellant of and concerning respondent, while the evidence admitted without objection shows that he spoke the words to her in the presence and hearing of third persons familiar with the language employed. In the coarsest terms known to the densely illiterate, he accused her of being a common thief, an adulteress, and a prostitute of the most detestable character. If true, the imputations are such that respondent is guilty of several distinct crimes punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. It being well settled that proof of special damage is unnecessary where the complainant is charged with an offense for which he may be indicted and punished, the court very properly overruled appellant's motion to direct a verdict in his favor on the ground that respondent had failed to show injury by reason of the defamatory matter. While it is enough to obviate the necessity of proving special damages if the offense be a crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, it was shown by the undisputed evidence in this case that respondent suffered injury in consequence of the words falsely spoken. Moreover, this evidence of injury to feelings having been admitted without objection, damages therefore are recoverable. Jackson v. Bell, 5 S. D. 257, 58 N. W. 671.
It is also urged, for the first time in this court, that a verdict should have been directed for appellant on account of the variance between the pleading and the proof; but the general rule consistent with such contention and the decisions cited in its support are not controlling in this state, or even influential, unless the adverse party has been actually misled to his prejudice, and the record contains no intimation that such is this case. Our statute abrogating the general rule that the plaintiff must fail unless the allegations of his complaint and the proof correspond is as follows: Comp. Laws, § 4934. In states having a similar statute it is held, in actions for slander, that a variance, in order to be material, must substantially mislead or prejudice the adverse party, which fact must be shown to the satisfaction of the court. Townsh. Sland. & L. § 363.
Appellant is the father-in-law of respondent, and on cross-examination she was asked if there was not at the time of the trial an action for divorce pending between herself and her husband; and the sustaining of an objection to this question on the ground that the same was not proper cross-examination is not reversible error. As the subject was in no manner touched upon in the direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Murphy v. I.R.S.
...is entitled to recover compensation [for] slander, such as injury to the feelings and injury to the reputation"); Bedtkey v. Bedtkey, 15 S.D. 310, 89 N.W. 479, 480 (1902) (holding "evidence of injury to feelings having been admitted without objection, damages therefore are recoverable"); Ki......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Engebretson
... ... 476, 57 N.W. 226." This ruling ... was expressly affirmed by this court in Fisher et al. v ... Porter et al., 11 S.D. 311, 77 N.W. 112; Bedtkey v ... Bedtkey, 15 S.D. 310, 89 N.W. 479. In the case at bar ... the evidence elicited on cross-examination over ... plaintiff's objections was in ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank v. Engebretson
...4 S.D. 476, 57 N.W. 226." This ruling was expressly affirmed by this court in Fisher v. Porter, 11 S.D. 311, 77 N.W. 112; Bedtkey v. Bedtkey, 15 S.D. 310, 89 N.W. 479. In the case at bar the evidence elicited on cross-examination over. plaintiff's objections was in no way related to matters......
-
T. W. Child & Co. v. Jenkins
...rulings of this court in Freeman v. City of Huron, 10 S.D. 368, 73 N.W. 260; Holdridge v. Lee, 3 S.D. 134, 52 N.W. 265; Bedtkey v. Bedtkey, 15 S.D. 315, 89 N.W. 479; State v. Bunker, 7 S.D. 639, 65 N.W. Appellant in his brief contends that there are only two possible theories upon which the......