Wilson v. Walt

• Decision Date: 07 October 1933
• Docket Number: 31076.
• Citation: 138 Kan. 205,25 P.2d 343
• Parties: WILSON v. WALT.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

25 P.2d 343

138 Kan. 205

WILSON v. WALT.

No. 31076.

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 7, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

In action for slander, defendant may show that he was victim of insane delusions on subject to which slanderous words related.

Where in action for slander, existence of defendant's insane delusions was fully tried under general denial, judgment for defendant will not be reversed because insanity was not specially pleaded.

Generally refusal to give requested instruction is immaterial where instructions given adequately cover issues in controversy.

1. In an action for damages for slander, evidence on behalf of defendant is competent to show that he was a victim of insane delusions on the subject to which the words related.

2. In an action for damages for slander where the answer is a general denial, and evidence on behalf of defendant tended to show that he had insane delusions on the subject to which the words related, and that issue is fully tried out, the judgment for defendant will not be reversed because the defense of insanity was not specifically pleaded.

3. Ordinarily, when the instructions given by the court to a jury cover the issues in controversy and are free from objections, the fact that the court refused a requested instruction becomes immaterial.

Appeal from District Court, Gove County; Herman Long, Judge.

Action by S. A. Wilson against A. M. Walt. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

W. L Sayers, of Hill City, and W. H. Clark, of Hoxie, for appellant.

C. A Spencer and J. H. Jenson, both of Oakley, for appellee.

HUTCHISON Justice.

This is an action for damages for slander. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.

From the record it appears that defendant and his wife had lived in Gove county where they had property, and were the parents of several grown children, but in 1926 were living in Oregon City. Plaintiff is a funeral director and had been engaged in that business at Quinter, in Gove county, since 1923. In 1926, he married a daughter of defendant, and he and his wife visited with defendant and his wife at Oregon City, remaining there about two weeks. Plaintiff and his wife again visited defendant and his wife at Twin Falls, Idaho, in 1927, remaining about two weeks. In 1928, plaintiff's wife visited her parents at Fort Collins, Colo. In July, 1929, defendant was in Gove county looking after his farm. Plaintiff and his wife went to visit him, and while there defendant charged plaintiff with being unduly familiar with his wife on the visit in Idaho. On March 30, 1930, defendant and his wife were then living in Gove county. They had trouble that day. Several of their children were there, but plaintiff was not present. While the extent of that trouble is not shown, one of the sons went for the sheriff and county attorney and brought them to the house. When they reached the house the county attorney asked the defendant if they were having some trouble. He replied that they were and charged his wife with immorality, and in doing so used coarse and vulgar language. When the county attorney told him he must be mistaken, the situation could not be true, he was vehement in his assertions that he was correct and named plaintiff as the person with whom his wife had been immoral. The remarks of the defendant on that occasion are the basis of this action for damages for slander.

Defendant's wife died in July, 1930. Plaintiff was the undertaker in charge of the funeral. When he went to present his bill to the defendant he took the sheriff with him. Defendant complained that the bill was excessive, was fussy about it, kicked plaintiff, and plaintiff struck him. They cursed each other and fought. When the summons was served on defendant in this action in January, 1931, he appears to have become much excited, did something unusual about his stock, just what was not shown, went to the house and inflicted a gunshot wound upon himself, apparently in an attempt at suicide.

There was much evidence that defendant, although sane on business matters, had insane delusions respecting the morality of his wife; that he was crazy on the subject; and that he had no cause to entertain such views. Prior to March 30, 1930, some of his children had discussed the necessity of having him examined or treated because of these insane delusions. He was examined by one physician who found no evidence of brain disease, but did find him not normal on some subjects. There was talk of taking him to Topeka for better examination. The evidence tended to show that his relatives and the officers who heard his remarks on March 30, 1930, regarded them as being without foundation in fact and as the utterances of one under a delusion on that subject. They thought...