Miles v. Vanhorn
| Citation | 17 Ind. 245 |
| Parties | Miles v. Vanhorn |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1861 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
APPEAL from the Blackford Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded.
H. S Kelley, A. J. Neff and Walter March, for the appellant.
D. Nation, A. Steele and H. D. Thompson, for the appellee.
This was an action for slander, by the appellee, who was the plaintiff, against Miles. The complaint consists of two counts. The first alleges that the defendant, on &c., at, &c., spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning her character for chastity, these false, slanderous and defamatory words, viz., First set of words: "There is nothing the matter with her, (meaning plaintiff,) only the boys (meaning certain boys in the neighborhood of the defendant) screwed her (the plaintiff meaning,) too much at the spelling school (meaning a spelling school then lately held in the neighborhood of the defendant); then and thereby meaning it to be understood by said words, that the plaintiff had been and was guilty of whoredom, and it was so understood by Jesse Munroe and others who heard defendant speak said words."
Second set: And also these words, as a continuation of the same conversation: "There is nothing the matter with her, (meaning the plaintiff,) only she (the plaintiff meaning) has screwed the boys too much at spelling school." Then and thereby wishing it to be thought and understood that the plaintiff was and had been guilty of whoredom with said boys at said spelling school, and it was so understood by Jesse Moore and others at the time. Third set: "Sarah Vanhorn is in the family way, and I (meaning defendant) can prove by Bob Thompson, that she (plaintiff meaning) has been taking camphor and opium pills to produce an abortion." Then and thereby wishing to be understood that said plaintiff had been guilty of whoredom, and that she had had illicit intercourse with men, she being at the time an unmarried woman, and it was so understood by Robert Thompson and others who heard him. And the plaintiff further says, that she is an unmarried woman, and that the defendant spoke of and concerning her, and of and concerning her character for virtue and chastity, the false, slanderous and defamatory words following, viz., Fourth set. "There is nothing the matter with her, (meaning plaintiff,) only she (plaintiff meaning) screwed the boys too much at spelling school; thereby intending it to be understood that she had been guilty of whoredom with certain unmarried men and boys, who had then lately attended a spelling school held in the neighborhood of plaintiff and defendant, and it was so understood at the time by Jesse Moore and divers others, good and worthy citizens, who heard him speak the words."
Defendant demurred severally to each set of words alleged in the complaint; but his demurrers to the first, second and fourth sets, were overruled; to the second, the demurrer was sustained.
The correctness of the decisions thus made, depends upon the solution of this inquiry: Does the word "screwed," as used in the first and fourth sets of words, of itself, impute sexual intercourse? If it does not, then the words in these sets are not actionable; because, in the complaint there is no averment that that word was used in a criminal sense; nor is the want of such averment at all supplied by the inuendo, for the reason that that branch of the pleading can not aver a fact, or change the natural meaning of words. Hays v. Mitchell, 7 Blackf. 117. The definition of "screwed," as given in Webster's Dictionary, is, "Fastened with screws, pressed with screws, forced." This is no doubt the ordinary and correct import of the word. It may, however, when spoken in certain localities, involve the charge of whoredom; but when that occurs, the pleading founded upon it, as slanderous, should affirmatively allege its import at the time and place it is used. The appellee refers to Rodebaugh v. Hollingsworth, 6 Ind. 339; but that authority does not favor his view of the question; because, there the word "screwed" was alleged in the complaint to have a provincial meaning; and that, at the time when, and place where, it was spoken, it meant sexual intercourse. So, in Hays v. Mitchell, supra, the words, "You hooked my geese," were adjudged not actionable, per se; but, at the same time, it was held competent for the plaintiff, in his pleading, to have made them express a criminal charge. We are referred to Shields v. Cunningham, 1 Blackf. 86. In that case, the words, leaving out the inuendoes, were charged in this form: "Doctor Eddy made an appointment with Elizabeth Cunningham, scaled the walls, and went to bed to her at Mrs. Reperton's house." These words were held actionable, per se; but that decision is plainly inapplicable to the case at bar; because there the words charged fairly impute sexual intercourse, while in this instance, the word in question, in its ordinary import, conveys no such imputation. Angle v. Alexander, 20 Eng. Com. Law, 71. The demurrers to the first and fourth sets of words were doubtless well taken. We think, however, that the third set are, as alleged, clearly actionable. It follows, the demurrer to that set was correctly overruled.
Defendant's answer contains two paragraphs: 1. A general traverse; 2. Justification. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which the Court, having refused a new trial, rendered judgment.
While the trial was in progress, and after a portion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. the Chicago & North-Western Ry. Co..
...to a declaration should not be allowed after a large part of the evidence is received: Kestler v. Raymond, 10 Ind. 200; Miles v. Van Horn, 17 Ind. 245; Hoot v. Spade, 20 Ind. 326; Blasingham v. Blasingham, 34 Ind. 86. The amendment stated a new cause of action, and to this the Statute of Li......
-
Hein v. Holdridge
... ... As to slander this ... rule applies. Hitchcock v. Moore, 70 Mich. 112; ... Rhodes v. Ijames, 7 Ala. 574; Miles v ... Vanhorn, 17 Ind. 245; Cooper v. Phipps, 24 Ore ... 357. Lotto v. Davenport, supra. So in false imprisonment ... Diers v. Mallon, 46 Neb ... ...
-
Williamson v. Eckhoff
...and Libel (2 Ed.), 823; Jones on Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 158; Hitchcock v. Moore, 70 Mich. 112; Harbison v. Shook, 41 Ill. 141; Miles v. VanHorn, 17 Ind. 245. (2) When a verdict in a libel or slander suit exceeds as to amount the limit of reason it must be treated as without evidence to supp......
-
Renfro v. Prior
...the merits and substantial issue, and was in violation of all rules of practice and legal proceedings; besides it was too late. Miles v. Vanhorn, 17 Ind. 245; sects. 3566, 3567, Rev. Stat.; Martin v. Martin, 27 Mo. 227; Kerr v. Bell, 44 Mo. 120; Irwin v. Chiles, 28 Mo. 576. IV. The question......