Shaw v. Bender
| Decision Date | 05 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 102.,102. |
| Citation | 90 N.J.Law. 147,100 A. 196 |
| Parties | SHAW v. BENDER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Atlantic County.
Action by Mary Shaw against Ella A. Bender. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Bolte, Sooy & Gill, of Atlantic City, for appellant. Lee F. Washington, of Atlantic City, for appellee.
WALKER, Ch. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for slander. The complaint contained two counts: (1) That on November 6, 1914, in the county of Atlantic, the defendant, in the presence of Rose Scan-Ian, William Colligan, and other persons, said to and of and concerning the plaintiff, "You (meaning the plaintiff) bring that sign back you stole last night, you and Col. Kelly;* * * you are a God damn liar; you stole it out of that window last night; * * * you are nothing but a thief; you stole my chair; * * * you stole part of my new range; * * * you stole the gaslight out of the dining room"—thereby stating that the plaintiff was a thief and guilty of the crime of larceny. (2) At the same time and place, in the presence of Rose Scanlan and William Colligan and other persons, defendant said to and of and concerning the plaintiff, "You (meaning the plaintiff) are nothing but a common low prostitute; * * * you are so God damn low you don't know what you are; * * * you are a liar; * * * he (meaning Col. Kelly) lives with you"—meaning thereby that the plaintiff was unchaste, subject to the punishment inflicted upon common prostitutes, and that the plaintiff was guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication with Kelly. Plaintiff alleged that the words were false and malicious, and demanded damages.
Defendant answered: (1) That there was no allegation in either count that the words spoken, or any of them, were used in a defamatory sense, and, further, that no special damage was alleged to have resulted to the plaintiff as a consequence of the words alleged to have been spoken, and that for want of such averments no cause of action was declared. (2) That the several allegations in the counts were wholly false in fact and untrue.
The action was tried in the Atlantic county circuit court before Carrow. J., and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, upon which judgment was duly entered, with costs. The defendant appealed to this court from the whole of the judgment: (1) Because the trial court refused the defendant's request to nonsuit the plaintiff at the close of her case; (2) because the court refused to nonsuit at the close of the defendant's evidence; and (3) because the court erred in charging the jury in certain particulars.
1. As to the motion to nonsuit: The plaintiff testified that on November 6, 1914, in the defendant's house in Atlantic City, in the presence of the defendant's brother, Mr. Colligan, and of Mrs. Scanlan and several others, she, the defendant, said to the plaintiff:
This story was corroborated by Mrs. Scanlan, who went with Mrs. Shaw to Mrs. Bender's. In this state of the proofs, the plaintiff rested, and the defendant moved for a nonsuit; the only ground approaching a reason therefor being counsel's assertion that there was no damage alleged or proved. The court thereupon allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint in certain respects requested by her attorney, namely, by alleging that, as a result of the language used, the plaintiff was injured in her reputation and standing in the community, and that the making of the statements damaged the plaintiff in her business as a hoarding house keeper, and as a result of the speaking of the words the plaintiff was humiliated in her feelings, as well as by the indignity of having the words spoken. The motion to nonsuit was denied, with leave to renew it at the end of the case.
Whenever words clearly "sound to the disreputation" of the plaintiff, there is no need of further proof; they are defamatory on their face and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.
...& Printing Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 459, 446 A.2d 469 cert. denied, 459 U.S. 999, 103 S.Ct. 358, 74 L.Ed.2d 395 (1982); Shaw v. Bender, 90 N.J.L. 147, 149, 100 A. 196 (E. & A.1916). To determine whether that test is met, a court must scrutinize the language "according to the fair and natural mean......
-
Gillon v. Bernstein
...clear on its face that the court is not required to submit the issue to the jury.") (citation omitted); see also Shaw v. Bender , 90 N.J.L. 147, 149, 100 A. 196 (N.J. 1917) ("Whenever words clearly sound to the disreputation of the plaintiff, there is no need of further proof; they are defa......
-
Schiavone Const. Co. v. Time, Inc.
...the words "sound to the disreputation" of plaintiffs, Lawrence, supra, 89 N.J. at 459, 446 A.2d 469, citing Shaw v. Bender, 90 N.J.L. 147, 149, 100 A. 196 (E. & A.1917); Rainier's Dairies, supra, 19 N.J. at 557, 117 A.2d 889; see also Hoffman v. Weider, 217 F.Supp. 172, 175 (D.N.J.1963), by......
-
O'regan v. Schermerhorn
...regardless of malice. 37 C.J. 46, sec. 385; Lapetina v. Santangelo, 124 App.Div. 519, 108 N.Y.S. 975, 977. Cf. Shaw v. Bender, 90 N.J.L. 147, 151, 100 A. 196. It doubtless would be better in such pleading to use the word ‘privilege’ and specify the kind, but the necessary matters to be prov......