Stevens v. Haering's Grocetorium

• Citation: 125 Wash. 404,216 P. 870
• Decision Date: 02 July 1923
• Docket Number: 17936.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STEVENS et ux. v. HAERING'S GROCETORIUM et al.

216 P. 870

125 Wash. 404

STEVENS et ux. v. HAERING'S GROCETORIUM et al.

No. 17936.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 2, 1923

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford, Judge.

Action by Clark O. Stevens and Clara Stevens, his wife, against Haering's Grocetorium, a corporation, and N. J. Haering. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Blackburn & Gielens, of Tacoma, for appellants.

Remann & Gordon, of Tacoma, for respondent.

TOLMAN J.

Respondents as plaintiffs instituted this action for the recovery of damages sustained by reason of alleged slanderous charges of larceny, uttered and published concerning them both. The gist of the complaint is that the respondent Clara Stevens, while employed in a store or booth located in a public market, and operated by appellant corporation, was directly charged and accused by appellant Haering, president of the corporation with the theft of the employer's money that these accusations were made in various forms, and in the presence and hearing of many persons, and language used which could mean only that the respondent husband was a participant in the crime. The answer, in addition to denials, contains an affirmative defense of justification as to the charge of larceny made against Mrs. Stevens. The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict in plaintiffs' favor for $3,250, and from a judgment thereon both defendants had appealed.

Three errors are assigned and relied upon for a reversal of the judgment:

(1) That it was error to refuse to instruct the jury as requested by appellants, 'that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff Clara Stevens caused the dissemination of the defamatory statements made by the defendant, you are not to allow her any damages accruing to her by such dissemination * * *' Such an instruction might be proper under some supposable state of facts, but here there was evidence before the jury from which the finding could be drawn that, because of the nature of the charges, the harsh manner in which they were made, and the time, place, and surrounding circumstances, Mrs. Stevens, as a natural and to be anticipated result, became hysterical and said and did things which were the pure product of appellants' action rather than the result of her own volition. Under such a state of facts the instruction in the form requested was improper.

(2) It is next urged that the court...