Summary
In Kuhne v. Ahlers (45 Misc. Rep. 454) it was held that to call one a swindler was not slanderous per se. (GAYNOR, J., Trial Term.) The same is held in Chase v. Whitlock (3 Hill, 139) and Eisile v. Walther (24 N.Y. St. Repr. 122).
Summary of this case from Villemin v. BrownOpinion
December, 1904.
Walter L. Bunnell for plaintiff.
Harold C. Knoeppel for defendant.
It has been settled ever since the case of Savile v. Jardine (2 H. Black. 531) that to say of one he is a swindler is no slander. The word is classed as one of abuse, merely, like "rogue" and "cheat", instead of charging a crime, which is necessary to make oral words a slander when spoken of one in his general character (Chase v. Whitlock, 3 Hill, 139; Odgers, p. 62; Townshend, sec. 173, and cases there collected). Cases like Forest v. Hanson (1 Cranch C.C. 63) are not to the contrary, for there the complaint was that the word was spoken of the plaintiff in his official position as director of a bank; and any words spoken of one in his office or calling of such a character that the law will presume that they injure him therein are a slander per se, whether they impute a crime or not.
The motion for a new trial is denied.