Peterson v. Murray

• Decision Date: 31 October 1895
• Docket Number: 1,620
• Citation: 41 N.E. 836,13 Ind.App. 420
• Parties: PETERSON v. MURRAY
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

41 N.E. 836

13 Ind.App. 420

PETERSON v. MURRAY

No. 1,620

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 31, 1895

From the Newton Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

J. D Brown and Allen & Chamberlain, for appellant.

D Fraser and W. H. Isham, for appellee.

OPINION

LOTZ, J.

The appellee sued the appellant to recover damages for slanderous words spoken. It was alleged that the defendant called the plaintiff a whore.

The answer was in two paragraphs; first, a general denial; and second, justification, that prior to the speaking of the words the plaintiff had illicit carnal connection with divers persons.

The cause was tried by a jury, which returned a general verdict, assessing plaintiff's damage in the sum of $ 300.00, on which judgment was rendered.

The only assignment of error is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions asked by appellant, and that the verdict is contrary to the law.

The instructions asked and refused are as follows:

"5. If you find that the defendant spoke the words alleged in the complaint, and you also find that at the time said words were spoken, the plaintiff prior to the speaking thereof had sexual intercourse with some person not her husband, then I say to you that the plaintiff would be a whore, and your finding should be for the defendant.

"6. If you find that the defendant spoke the alleged slanderous words as charged in the complaint, or words of similar import, and that prior to the speaking thereof the said plaintiff had sexual intercourse with one Sam Murray, who was not then her husband, but who afterwards married the plaintiff, then I instruct you that the plaintiff would be a whore, and you should find for the defendant.

"7. I charge you that any act of sexual intercourse between a married female and a male person not her husband, or between an unmarried female and a male person, is whoredom; and if the plaintiff has committed a single act of this kind, then I say to you that she would be a whore, and if you so find from all the evidence and circumstances in this case, then your verdict should be for the defendant." * * * *

"11. The court further instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff at the time of her marriage with Robert M. Snyder was pregnant with child, and that such pregnancy was the result of sexual intercourse while she was an unmarried woman, then in law she would be guilty of whoredom and she cannot recover in this case, and your verdict should be for the defendant.

"12. The court further instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff at the time of her marriage with William Reynolds was an unmarried woman and pregnant with child, then the law in such case would be that she was guilty of whoredom, and if you so find your verdict should be for the defendant.

"13. The court instructs the jury that if you find from the evidence that since the marriage of the plaintiff and Samuel Murray the plaintiff has had sexual intercourse with any person other than her husband, such conduct would render her guilty of whoredom, and she could not recover in this...