Williams v. Fulks

• Decision Date: 11 May 1914
• Docket Number: 308
• Citation: 167 S.W. 93,113 Ark. 82
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. FULKS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

167 S.W. 93

113 Ark. 82

WILLIAMS v. FULKS

No. 308

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 11, 1914

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; W. J. Driver, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

M. P Huddleston and Robert E. Fisher, for appellant.

Block & Kirsch and T. A. Turner, for appellee.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted by the appellee, Dora Jackson Fulks against J. M. Williams and his wife, Nancy Williams, to recover damages on account of slanderous words alleged to have been spoken by defendant, Nancy Williams, concerning the plaintiff.

This is the third appeal. The first judgment was in favor of defendants, and, on appeal, that judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. 92 Ark. 486. The second trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and, on appeal, that judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. 103 Ark. 196.

The facts are fully set forth in the former opinions and need not be again rehearsed.

The words alleged to have been spoken were slanderous per se, and the law applicable to the case is fully settled on the former appeals.

In the last trial plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $ 1,000, and the defendants have prosecuted the appeal to this court.

The only assignments of error relate to rulings of the court in admitting testimony. There are several of these assignments, and they all relate to testimony which had bearing only on the question of the amount of damages, except one of the assignments, which related to testimony affecting the credibility of one of the witnesses.

After a careful examination of these assignments we are of the opinion that none of them constitute reversible error. It is unnecessary to discuss them all, as the principles affecting them are not unconnected.

One of the assignments is as to the ruling of the court in permitting the plaintiff to testify about certain postal cards which she had received through the mails subsequent to the utterance of the slander.

This occurred on re-direct examination, after counsel for defendants had subjected her to a searching cross-examination on all phases of the case, and particularly with reference to the amount of her injury by reason of the slander. She was asked about the persons who knew of the slander and their character, and whether she had reason to think that the slanderous words were believed by people in the community. On re-direct examination, immediately following this part of the cross-examination, she was asked by counsel for plaintiff whether or not she had received postal cards through the mails (then handed to her), and what was her state of mind after she received them. Objection was made by defendant's counsel to the introduction of the postal cards, and the court sustained the objection, telling the jury at the time to disregard anything said in their hearing insofar as the cards were concerned, but that the degree of plaintiff's mental suffering being a matter at issue as affecting the damages she could be permitted to state that she received postal cards, and what the condition of her mind was at the time as the result of the slanderous words uttered by the defendant, Mrs. Williams. She was then permitted to state that she received postal cards, and that her heart was almost broken over the incident.

The defendants can not complain at the failure of the court to permit the postal cards to be read, because the cards were excluded upon their request. They objected to the plaintiff making any statement about the condition of her feeling at...