McDaniel v. Jordan

• Decision Date: 26 May 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 5.)
• Citation: 262 S.W. 30
• Parties: McDANIEL v. JORDAN.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

262 S.W. 30

McDANIEL v. JORDAN.

(No. 5.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 26, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lonoke County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Ruth Jordan against L. J. McDaniel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Judgment reversed and remanded for new trial.

This is an action of slander brought by Mrs. Ruth Jordan against L. J. McDaniel. The complaint is in two paragraphs. In the first paragraph it is alleged that the plaintiff is a married woman, and resides in Goodrum township, Lonoke county, Ark.; that on the ____ day of August, 1922, in Lonoke county, Ark., the defendant, in the presence and hearing of several persons, falsely and maliciously stated that he had registered with the plaintiff as husband and wife at a hotel in Little Rock, Ark., and while there had had sexual intercourse with her.

In the second paragraph of the complaint it is alleged that on the ____ day of August, 1922, in Lonoke county, Ark., the defendant spoke of and concerning the plaintiff the following words: "That she was a damned little lying bitch."

The defendant filed an answer, in which he admitted stating that he had registered at a hotel with the plaintiff as husband and wife and while there had had sexual intercourse with her, and averred that said statement was the truth. He denied having said of the plaintiff that she was a "damned little lying bitch," or words of similar import.

According to the testimony of the plaintiff, she was a married woman, and had lived about seven miles south of Cabot, Lonoke county, Ark., for 25 years. She heard of the slanderous remarks which the defendant is alleged to have spoken of her, and detailed the pain and anguish which they caused her. She denied that she had ever had sexual intercourse with the defendant, or that she had ever had any improper relations with him.

Another witness for the plaintiff testified that he had had a conversation with the defendant in August, 1922, in Lonoke county, Ark., in which the defendant told him that he had registered with the plaintiff as husband and wife at a hotel in Little Rock, Ark., and had slept with her while there. In a few days thereafter the witness had another conversation with the defendant at the same place, and the defendant said of the plaintiff that she was the "lyingest damned little bitch that he ever talked to."

The defendant was a witness for himself. He denied that he had ever said of the plaintiff that she was the "lyingest damned little bitch that he ever talked to," or that he ever spoke words of similar import about her. He admitted that he had stated that he had registered with the plaintiff as husband and wife at a hotel in Little Rock, Ark., and had had sexual intercourse with her while there. He testified that this was the truth, and introduced other witnesses whose testimony tended to corroborate his own in this respect.

On the other hand the plaintiff denied having registered with the defendant at a hotel in Little Rock, Ark., and testified that she had never had sexual intercourse with him or any other kind of improper relations whatever. Other witnesses introduced by her tended to corroborate her testimony in this respect.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $1,000, and from the judgment rendered the defendant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Reed & Beard, of Lonoke, for appellant.

Wm. J. Waggoner, of Lonoke, for appellee.

HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Under our statute, if any person shall falsely utter words which in their common acceptation shall amount to charge any person with having been guilty of fornication or adultery, such words, so spoken, shall be deemed slander, and shall be actionable as such. Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 2394.

In the construction of this statute it has been held that an oral charge of unchastity in a woman is actionable per se. Jackson v. Williams, 92 Ark. 486, 123 S. W. 751, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 840. The instructions of the court on this phase of the case were correct. It is contended, however, that the court erred in telling the jury as a matter of law that it is actionable per se to utter the defamatory words which charged the plaintiff with being a liar, and in this contention we think counsel are correct.

Under our statute oral charges of falsehood are not actionable per se, and can only be actionable by alleging some special damage which has...