Eddy v. Cunningham

Citations

• 69 Wash. 544
• 125 P. 961

Syllabus

<p>Libel and Slander—Instructions—Charge of Larceny. In an action for slander in applying the word “thief” to an agent who had taken his principal’s money, it is proper to instruct that defendant must show on his plea of justification, that the plaintiff not only took the money, but did so with criminal intent, where the plaintiff had full charge of the business, receiving all moneys and paying all demands, including his own salary, and claimed that he took the money under- a good faith claim that he was entitled to take it to pay a debt.</p> <p>Same—Words Actionable—“Thief”—Justification. Since calling plaintiff a “thief,” is only prima facie actionable, malice being the gravamen of the charge, the defendant would not be liable if the words were used merely as terms of abuse in relation to a transaction that was fraudulent but not criminal, and justified by the attending circumstances and relations of the parties.</p> <p>Same — “Pimp” — Justification—Truth of Charge—Evidence. In an action for slander in calling a man a “pimp,” the plaintiff was “living with” a prostitute, within Rem. & Bal. Code, § 2440, and the defendant was accordingly justified, where it appears that the plaintiff was a clerk in a hotel where prostitutes frequently stopped for several days at a time, and that as a rule he assigned them to a room convenient to his own, and consorted with one of them regularly and with others occasionally, although there was no proof that they “lived with” each other as man and wife.</p>