Krone v. Block

• Decision Date: 06 June 1910
• Citation: 129 S.W. 43,144 Mo. App. 575
• Parties: KRONE v. BLOCK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

129 S.W. 43

144 Mo. App. 575

KRONE v. BLOCK.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 6, 1910.

1. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 7) — WORDS NOT ACTIONABLE PER SE.

To call a woman a bitch is not actionable per se, and, a fortiorari, it is not actionable per se to call a woman a hen or a cat.

2. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 81) — PLEADING — WORDS NOT ACTIONABLE PER SE — INNUENDO AVERMENTS — INSUFFICIENCY.

Epithets charged in a petition not being actionable per se, extrinsic facts, not embraced in the imputed words, should be averred by way of inducement to show their meaning and the character of the person to whom they applied, in traversable form, to make them actionable, and it is insufficient to make such averments by way of innuendo.

3. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 86) — PLEADING — NATURE OF "INNUENDO."

An "innuendo" is not the statement of a fact, but an inference.

4. DAMAGES (§ 153) — PLEADING — EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

A plaintiff cannot recover exemplary damages if he does not state the amount thereof separately, as required by Rev. St. 1899, § 594 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 622).

5. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 123) — NONSUIT — DIRECTION OF VERDICT.

In a slander suit the court can direct a nonsuit, but cannot force a verdict for plaintiff.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Virgil Rule, Judge.

Action by Annie G. Krone against Albert S. Block. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Peers & Peers and E. P. Johnson, for appellant. H. A. Yonge, for respondent.

NIXON, P. J.

This was an action for slander, commenced by the respondent against the appellant, Albert S. Block, in which the cause of action was stated in the petition as follows (caption omitted): "Now comes the plaintiff in the above-entitled action, and for her first amended petition, filed herein by leave of court first had and obtained, states that she is and was at all times herein mentioned a single and unmarried woman, and that the defendant, Albert S. Block, on the 29th day of October, A. D. 1907, in the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, in the presence and hearing of a large number of persons, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously, falsely spoke the following false and slanderous words of and concerning plaintiff, that is to say, `The God damned old hen, the God damned old cat, the God damned old bitch,' meaning thereby that plaintiff was a slut and a whore, and that the said language so spoken of and concerning plaintiff was so understood by the persons in whose presence the same was spoken, and said words so spoken by defendant of and concerning plaintiff, according to their natural import, impute to plaintiff a want of chastity and that she is and was a whore. That plaintiff states that said false and slanderous words so spoken by defendant has damaged her reputation and good name and caused her great anguish of mind and mental suffering, and that she has been damaged by reason thereof in the sum of $10,000. That plaintiff further states that said acts and said false and slanderous words so spoken by defendant were willfully, wantonly, and maliciously spoken by him of and concerning plaintiff. That plaintiff prays for actual and exemplary damages in the sum of $10,000 for which she sues and prays judgment." The answer was a general denial. The evidence tended to support the allegations of the petition as to the words being spoken. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the defendant asked the court to give an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence which the court refused to give. Under the instructions...