Majority
p. 41(45 Misc. Rep. 454.) KUHNE v. AHLERS. (Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County. December, 1904.)
Headnote
1. Slander—Actionable Words—“Swindler.”To say of one that he is a swindler, when it is not spoken of him in his-office or calling, is not slanderous.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Libel and Slander,. §§ 68, 95.]
Action by Paul Kuhne against Simon Ahlers for slander. On motion by plaintiff for new trial on dismissal of the complaint.. Motion denied.
The words complained of were as follows:
“Who are you, anyhow? You are a bankrupt and a swindler. I know why you had to leave Berlin and Staten Island. Your children are thieves and were arrested for stealing, and you, Kuhne (meaning plaintiff), are a Goddamned son of a bitch.”
Walter L. Bunnell, for plaintiff.
Harold C. Knoeppel, for defendant.
It has been settled ever since the case of Savilev. 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, § 173, and cases there collected). Casés like Forrest v. Hanson, 1 Cranch, C.
p. 42
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.