Opinion
Gen. No. 41,112.
Opinion filed October 1, 1940. Rehearing denied October 15, 1940.
1. LIBEL AND SLANDER, § 55 — complaint, sufficiency. Complaint charging slander stated cause of action, where it alleged that plaintiff lost her employment as a maid, had been ever since out of employment, and was discharged without character reference, as a result of statements defendant made to her employer signifiying that plaintiff had feloniously stolen newspapers belonging to tenants on the premises.
See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.
2. LIBEL AND SLANDER, § 7fn_ — charging theft, as slanderous per se. Words charging maid with feloniously stealing newspapers belonging to tenants on premises were slanderous per se.
3. LIBEL AND SLANDER, § 61fn_ — special damage, pleading. Allegation that maid had been discharged without reference as a result of defendant's statements that she had stolen newspapers belonging to tenants amounted to an averment of special damages.
Appeal by plaintiff from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. PETER H. SCHWABA, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the February term, 1940. Reversed and remanded. Opinion filed October 1, 1940. Rehearing denied October 15, 1940.
SONNENSCHEIN, BERKSON, LAUTMANN, LEVINSON MORSE, of Chicago, for appellees; JESSE H. BROWN, of Chicago, of counsel.
In this case plaintiff appeals from an order entered July 27, 1939, granting the motion of defendant to strike plaintiff's second amended complaint and dismissing the cause.
The complaint was in two counts, one of which charged slander and the other assault. The question for decision is whether either count stated a cause of action. If the first or second count stated a good cause of action it was, of course, error to dismiss the suit. We hold the first count stated a cause of action. In substance it charged that plaintiff was a person of good repute and theretofore found employment in homes of quality and respectability in Chicago; that at the time of the utterance of the slanderous words she was employed by Charles and Mae Windsor as a maid in their home at 174-186 E. Delaware place, Chicago; that defendant, Bakke, was the manager and agent of the premises in which her employers lived, which was owned by the Beacon Building Corporation, the other defendant; that Bakke, intending to injure plaintiff, on January 28, 1939, falsely and maliciously spoke of plaintiff these words: "I have been watching this girl [meaning plaintiff] for some time; I have long suspected her [meaning plaintiff] of taking the papers from this floor which were delivered and left at the doors of the other tenants and so I set a trap for her and found that she had Dr. Campbell's marked paper in her pantry. I can't have her on the place. She [meaning planitiff] has been stealing these papers for some time. I can't have her [meaning plaintiff] on the place any longer." The complaint says Bakke meant to signify that plaintiff had feloniously stolen the newspapers belonging to the tenants on the premises. It is also averred that by reason of what he said she was discharged without character reference and was deprived of wages she was then earning, and that she has ever since been out of employment.
Defendants contend the words were not slanderous per se, and that it was, therefore, necessary that the pleader should allege special damages. While the brief of plaintiff seems to concede the words spoken were not slanderous per se, we hold they were on the authority of Miller v. Johnson, 79 Ill. 58, and Stumer v. Pitchman, 124 Ill. 250. Moreover, the complaint alleges that as a result of the words spoken plaintiff was discharged without reference. This amounts to an averment of special damages. The court erred in sustaining the motion to strike and in dismissing the suit. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
O'CONNOR, P.J., and McSURELY, J., concur.