Frolich v. McKiernan

Slander — Charge of Theft against Secretary of Corporation—Actionable Words — Pleading.—The words, “you thief,” “you swindler," “you scoundrel,” “you want to swindle me out of my money,” alleged in the complaint to have been slanderously spoken in the presence of others, by defendant, of, to, and concerning plaintiff as the secretary of a corporation of which defendant was president, and for the purpose of injuring plaintiff in his said office, and to have been meant to be understood, and to have been actually understood, by those who heard them, as charging plaintiff with having committed theft as such secretary, are actionable, and cannot upon demurrer he construed as merely imputing to plaintiff a desire to swindle. Id. —Special Damages. —When the complaint in an action for slander contains allegations sufficiently showing that the words spoken of the plaintiff by the defendant are actionable, it is not necessary to allege special damages.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Santa Clara County. The complaint -alleges that plaintiff is, and was at the time set forth therein, the secretary of the Santa Clara Valley Co-operative Wine Company, a corporation of which defendant is and then was president and a stockholder, and proceeds to allege as follows: “That on the twelfth day of November, 1887, in the presence of one F. Duchatel, the superintendent of said corporation, William Farrington, a stockholder and director thereof, Richard Faull, and other persons then and there present, the said defendant willfully and maliciously spoke to, of, and concerning the plaintiff the following false and scandalous words, ‘ you thief/ ‘ you swindler/ ‘ yon scoundrel/ ‘ you want to swindle me out of my money/ meaning thereby that this plaintiff, by virtue of the position he held as aforesaid, and by reason of his acts as such secretary, clothed with the 'duties thereof, had stolen from the said defendant as stockholder aforesaid, and as such secretary cheated and defrauded the said defendant, and was of such character that he was unfit to be, and to act as, such secretary, because of being dishonest; that defendant desired to be understood, and did mean thereby, and' was understood by said plaintiff "and the said parties then present, as charging the said plaintiff with dishonesty, and as being unreliable in his office in said incorporation as aforesaid, for the services of which plaintiff was being pecuniarily recompensed, and from which recompense he supported his family; and defendant did so charge plaintiff with being a thief, for the purpose of, and defendant did then and there desire to be understood,, and was- understood by said parties, as charging said plaintiff unqualifiedly of having committed theft as such secretary as aforesaid; that defendant did mean, and was understood to mean, by parties then and there present, and by this plaintiff, by said words, ‘you swindler/ ‘you scoundrel/ that this plaintiff was dishonest, unreliable, an.d unworthy of confidence as such secretary as aforesaid; and said defendant did mean by the expression ‘ you want to swindle me out of my money/ and was so- understood by the parties then and there present,, as imputing to plaintiff an attempt to steal, to swindle, and defraud defendant, and want of honesty; and said charges, as- aforesaid, did tend, and were uttered by said defendant for the purpose of inducing and compelling the- directors of said corporation to remove the plaintiff as such secretary from said position, thereby to- deprive the said plaintiff of the support of himself and family from salary as such secretary. By reason of which plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of ten thousand dollars. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of ten thousand dollars, and costs o.f suit/’ Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.