From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kuhne v. Ahlers

Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term
Dec 1, 1904
45 Misc. 454 (N.Y. Misc. 1904)

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. Brown

Opinion

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.


Summaries of

Kuhne v. Ahlers

Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term
Dec 1, 1904
45 Misc. 454 (N.Y. Misc. 1904)

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. Brown
Case details for

Kuhne v. Ahlers

Case Details

Full title:PAUL KUHNE, Plaintiff, v . SIMON AHLERS, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1904

Citations

45 Misc. 454 (N.Y. Misc. 1904)
92 N.Y.S. 41

Citing Cases

Villemin v. Brown

" In Kuhne v. Ahlers ( 45 Misc. Rep. 454) it was held that to call one a swindler was not slanderous per se.…

Santos v. Gallin

that the foregoing letter was meant to convey that the plaintiff was guilty of unethical, illegal, unsavory…