Hulbert v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 05 June 1912
• Citation: 83 N.J.L. 114,83 A. 497
• Parties: HULBERT v. ARNOLD.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

83 A. 497

83 N.J.L. 114

HULBERT

v. ARNOLD.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 5, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by Lucy C. Hulbert against Willis C. Arnold. Judgment for plaintiff. Rule to show cause discharged.

Argued February term, 1912, before BERGEN, VOORHEES, and KALISCH, JJ.

Vreeland, King, Wilson & Lindabury, of Newark, for plaintiff.

Willard W. Cutler, of Morristown, for defendant.

BERGEN, J. This issue was framed in the Supreme Court and sent to the Morris county circuit for trial, where the plaintiff had a verdict for $10,000, whereupon a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted was allowed, no exceptions being reserved, which the defendant now moves be made absolute. This action was brought to recover damages for slanderous words spoken by the defendant defamatory of the plaintiff. The testimony introduced by the plaintiff shows that she is 26 years of age and was supporting herself by teaching, being at the time of the alleged slander engaged as teacher of the Washington Valley school in Morris county, one of the public schools of this state of which the defendant was one of the members of the board of education having the management thereof; that the defendant said the plaintiff was a whore, and repeatedly allowed two men to come to the school-house, and had illicit intercourse with them, each in turn watching outside while the other was in the schoolhouse with the plaintiff; that as a consequence she became with child and her condition of pregnancy was plainly observable, of which she was relieved by an operation for abortion performed by physicians at the Morristown hospital. These charges against the plaintiff were made by the defendant to several persons, and when one of them, a Mr. Mills, remonstrated with him about these statements, and said they were not true, he said he could prove them, and when he was advised to go to the hospital and ascertain the truth he replied that women went there for that purpose, and it was always put in the papers that they had appendicitis. He also said her condition was such that it was disgusting to have her in the school, that she was so far in the family way that the children all talked about her, and that the neighbors talked about it. The substance of these charges is that a young woman engaged in teaching children dismissed them from school in order to submit herself to the embraces of two paramours in immediate succession, the one waiting and watching while the other gratified her lustful passions, a prostitution of the most degrading character, and that she, becoming pregnant, submitted to an operation for abortion, charges which he persisted in reiterating, and asserting he could prove after he had been assured of their falsity with knowledge of the names of reputable physicians in charge of the hospital from whom he might obtain the truth if he so desired. The defendant was called as a witness and did not undertake to establish the truth of his statements, but, on the contrary, denied making them. The evidence that he did so defame the plaintiff is so overwhelming as to lead to the conclusion that the defendant was purposely untruthful, and, under such...