Paddock v. Speidel — 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 27

Majority

p. 27

Amanda Paddock and Edward Paddock, App’lts, v. Hannah Speidel and Martin Speidel, Resp’ts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed December 14, 1891.)

Headnote

Slander—Pleading.

A complaint for slander by two plaintiffs against two defendants which alleges that one of the latter used defamatory words against one of the plaintiffs, but contains no allegation that either the defendants or the plaintiffs are husband and wife, fails to state a cause of action.

Appead from order sustaining demurrer to complaint, with leave to amend.

Action for slander. The complaint was as follows :

First. That the parties herein are residents of the village of Port Jervis, Orange county, N. Y.

Second. The plaintiff, Amanda Paddock, alleges for a cause of action against the defendant that on or about the 31st day of March, 1891, that the defendant herein, Hannah Speidel, wickedly and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff and her good name, fame and credit and to bring her into public scandal, infamy and disrepute with and amongst all her neighbors and other good and worthy citizens, and to cause it to be suspected and believed by the neighbors and citizens that the plaintiff has been and was guilty of the offenses and misdemeanors hereinafter mentioned to have been made and charged upon her by said defendant ; did at the time aforesaid at Port Jervis, N. Y, and in the presence and hearing of divers good and worthy citizens, falsely and maliciously speak and declare of the said plaintiff, Amanda Paddock, the false and scandalous, malicious and defamatory words following: That is to say, that the plaintiff, Amanda Paddock, was a common thief and stole a bottle of liquor from some person in said neighborhood. Further that said plaintiff, Amanda Paddock, was a common whore and laid at a house of prostitu

p. 28

tian in the village of Port Jervis with anyone who would give her fifty cents.

Third. That by reason of the commission of which said several grievances by the said defendant as aforesaid, the said plaintiff has been and still is greatly injured in her good name and brought into public scandal, infamy and disgrace with and among all her neighbors and other good and worthy citizens, to the damage of the plaintiff of $1,000.

Wherefore the defendant demands judgment for $1,000, besides the costs and disbursements of this action.

Defendants demurred on the ground of misjoinder of parties, both plaintiff and defendant, and that there were not facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against both defendants.

Wilton Bennet, for app’lts; Amos Van Etten, for resp’ts.

Two persons commenced an action of slander against two other persons, and in the complaint alleged that one of the defendants had used defamatory words against one of the plaintiffs.

There was no allegation that either the plaintiffs or the defendants were husband and wife, and both of the defendants demurred to the complaint for a misjoinder of parties and that the complaint did not state a cause of action in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

The demurrers were sustained at the special term and the plaintiffs have appealed from the order sustaining the demurrer.

It requires no argument to show that the complaint fails tosíate a cause of action, and the orders appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.