Steinbuchel v. Wright

• Decision Date: 08 March 1890
• Citation: 43 Kan. 307,23 P. 560
• Parties: HERMAN STEINBUCHEL v. IDA A. WRIGHT
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

23 P. 560

43 Kan. 307

HERMAN STEINBUCHEL v. IDA A. WRIGHT

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 8, 1890

Error from Sedgwick District Court.

ON the 1st day of September, 1886, Ida A. Wright brought her action against Herman Steinbuchel, to recover $ 10,000 for slander. On the 18th day of November, 1886, with permission of the court, she filed the following amended petition, omitting caption:

"Said Ida A. Wright now comes by leave of court, and for amended petition herein says: That she is and at the time of the grievances hereinafter mentioned was a married woman, and the wife of said plaintiff, John H. Wright; that said Herman Steinbuchel, well knowing the premises, on or about the 1st day of June, 1886, in a certain discourse in the presence and hearing of divers persons, maliciously spoke and published of and concerning said Ida A. Wright the false and malicious words following, to wit: 'She [meaning said Ida A Wright] is a common strumpet. He [meaning said Ida A Wright's said husband] has picked her [meaning said Ida A. Wright] up to ride around with him [meaning said John H Wright] for his [meaning said John H. Wright's] own use. They [meaning said Ida A. Wright and her said husband] are not married.' By means whereof Ida A. Wright has been damaged in her reputation in the sum of $ 10,000. Wherefore said Ida A. Wright prays for judgment against said defendant for said sum of $ 10,000."

Subsequently the defendant filed the following answer:

"And now comes defendant, Herman Steinbuchel, and denies each and every allegation contained in plaintiff's amended petition; and for a further defense the said defendant, Herman Steinbuchel, says that he did say at the time set forth in plaintiff's petition that he (the said defendant) believed that John H. Wright, husband of Ida A. Wright, plaintiff herein, was not a married man, and the woman who accompanied him, the said John H. Wright, at the said time, was not the plaintiff, Ida A. Wright, but another woman; that on or about the 1st day of July, 1886, the said defendant, Herman Steinbuchel, became acquainted through the said John H. Wright, husband of the plaintiff, Ida A. Wright, that he, the said John H. Wright, was a married man, and that the woman who accompanied him, the said John H. Wright, was the plaintiff, Ida A. Wright, and wife of the said John H. Wright; whereupon the said defendant, Herman Steinbuchel, apologized to the said John H. Wright, husband of the plaintiff, Ida A. Wright, for anything and everything said by the said defendant, Herman Steinbuchel, at the time aforesaid, against the said John H. Wright and his wife, Ida A. Wright, the plaintiff herein."

Trial had on the 4th of March, 1887. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed her damages at $ 4,000. The defendant filed his motion for a new trial, alleging among other things excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. During the progress of the argument upon the motion for a new trial, the court announced that it regarded the verdict as excessive that it ought not to stand; that it would not allow a verdict for more than $ 500; but if plaintiff's counsel were disposed to enter a remittitur of...