Reilly v. Curtiss
| Decision Date | 18 July 1912 |
| Citation | 84 A. 199,83 N.J.L. 77 |
| Parties | REILLY v. CURTISS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court of Elizabeth.
Action by Michael Reilly against Edwin R. Curtiss. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued February term, 1912, before TRENCHARD, PARKER, and MINTURN, JJ.
J. A. Kiernan, of Elizabeth, for appellant.
Abe J. David, of Elizabeth, for appellee.
In this action for slander, the judge of the district court, sitting without a jury, gave the plaintiff a judgment for $50.
The state of demand averred in effect, and the proof showed, that the defendant, in a certain discourse, falsely said that the election board of the Fourth district of the Eighth ward of the city of Elizabeth was drunk while on duty on registration day, and was totally unfit to receive names for registry. It was also averred and admitted that the plaintiff was a member of that board.
The sole contention of the defendant on this appeal is that the judge erred in not limiting the judgment to nominal damages. We are of opinion that there is no merit in the contention.
Every district board of registry and election is composed of four members. P. L. 1911, p. 277, § 4.
A sweeping charge of misconduct, leveled against a public board without exception, necessarily points the finger of condemnation at every member thereof, though none are named; and every member of the board may maintain an action therefor. Levert v. Daily States Pub. Co., 123 La. 594, 49 South. 206, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 726, 131 Am. St. Rep. 356; 25 Cyc. 352, 362, 363.
The office of member of a district board of registry and election is one of profit (P. L. 1911, p. 283, § 11); and, under section 9, a member is subject to removal, if shown to be disqualified. Words spoken falsely, imputing drunkenness while on duty, and unfitness for duty, to a member of such board reflect upon his capacity, and tend to work a detriment, from a pecuniary point of view, by rendering his tenure precarious, and are actionable per se. 25 Cyc. 346; Heller v. Duff, 62 N. J. Law, 101, 40 Atl. 691.
When words spoken are actionable per se, plaintiff is not required to introduce evidence of actual damage to entitle him to substantial damages, since, in the absence of any evidence of damage, the law presumes damage. 25 Cyc. 531.
The case of Alexander v. Jenkins, 1 Q. B. 797, cited by the defendant, is not in point. There the office for which the plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earl v. Winne
...by innuendo malfeasance on the part of a public official. Garven v. Finch, 97 N.J.L. 329, 116 A. 771 (E. & A.1921); Reilly v. Curtiss, 83 N.J.L. 77, 84 A. 199 (Sup.Ct.1912). They are actionable when thus spoken or written. Shaw v. Bender, 90 N.J.L. 147, 100 A. 196 (E. & A.1917). See also Wa......
-
Mick v. American Dental Ass'n
...or whether by the persons mentioned in the libel the plaintiff was intended, is a question of fact for the jury.' In Reilly v. Curtiss, 83 N.J.L. 77, 84 A. 199 (Sup.Ct.1912), defendant made an accusation against the election board of the City of Elizabeth. There the court 'A sweeping charge......
-
Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., A--353
...confusion between libel, and slanderous words actionable Per se, as it cites as authoritative the decision in Reilly v. Curtiss, 83 N.J.L. 77, 84 A. 199 (Sup.Ct.1912), which dealt only with oral defamation. Moreover, it cites as authority for the proposition that there is no difference betw......
-
Van Poole v. Nippu Jiji Co.
...Thiesen, 140 La. 663, 73 So. 717; First Nat. Bank v. Winters, 159 N. Y. S. 923; Smith v. Lyons, 142 La. 975, 77 So. 896; Reilly v. Curtiss, 83 N. J. L. 77, 84 Atl. 199; Williams v. Hicks Printing Co., 159 Wis. 90, 150 N. W. 183; Turner v. Hearst, 137 Cal. 232, 70 Pac. 18;Knowlden v. Guardia......