Freeman v. Sanderson

• Decision Date: 10 April 1890
• Docket Number: 14,156
• Parties: Freeman v. Sanderson
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

24 N.E. 239

123 Ind. 264

Freeman v. Sanderson

No. 14,156

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 10, 1890

From the Owen Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

D. E Beem and W. Hickam, for appellant.

W. E Dittemore and N.W. Williams, for appellee.

OPINION

Olds, J.

This was an action by the appellee against the appellant for slander. Issues were joined and a trial had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee.

The errors assigned are: The overruling of the demurrer to the complaint, overruling the motion for a new trial, and overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

There were several sets of words alleged in the complaint to have been spoken by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff in the presence and hearing of divers persons.

The complaint showed by inducement and innuendo that the words were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff, and that they were meant, and were understood to mean, that the plaintiff, an unmarried woman, had been guilty of fornication.

The demurrer was to the whole complaint, and if one set of words are properly pleaded so to constitute a cause of action the demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. The complaint alleged that "the defendant maliciously, intending to ruin the plaintiff's good name and reputation among her neighbors, and bring her into public infamy, disgrace and scandal, spoke of and concerning the plaintiff the following false, defamatory and slanderous words to and in the presence of King Townsend and others, that is to say that I (meaning defendant) caught you (John Freeman meaning) and her (plaintiff meaning) in the kitchen at it; and I (defendant meaning) caught you, John Freeman, on her (plaintiff meaning) in the kitchen, thereby meaning and charging that said plaintiff had carnal intercourse with said John Freeman in the kitchen, defendant's kitchen, thereby charging, and intending to charge, and that it should be understood by those who heard the words, and it was so understood by those who were present and heard the said words, that said plaintiff was guilty of the crime of fornication."

Another set of words is charged as follows: "And you, John (meaning John Freeman), met her (plaintiff meaning) at the old house, and you (John meaning), knew she (plaintiff meaning) is nothing but a whoring slut, thereby meaning that said John and said plaintiff had carnal intercourse at the old house, said old house being on John's farm, and thereby meaning that said plaintiff was a person of unchaste character and was guilty of the crime of fornication; and in the same conversation the said defendant uttered and published the following false, defamatory and slanderous words, to wit, that is to say, that she (plaintiff meaning) had been guilty of the same with David Wagoner, thereby meaning that said plaintiff had had carnal intercourse with said Wagoner, and that said plaintiff was a woman of unchaste character, and that she was guilty of the crime of fornication; and said plaintiff says that said words were used in a slanderous sense by Victoria Freeman; that she thereby meant and was understood by...