Herler v. Pierce

Citations

• 50 Pa. Super. 568
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 96

Syllabus

<p>Slander — Innuendo—Meaning of words — Evidence—Case for jury— Damages — Special damages.</p> <p>1. In an action for slander plaintiff charged that defendant uttered these defamatory words: '“H. buys and sells No. 2 hams,’ thereby meaning and intending to charge that the said H. sold hams that were inferior in quality, sour and unfit to eat, unmarketable, and which have to be sold contrary to the meat inspection law; and the said term No. 2 hams is generally so understood among the trade.” The evidence as to the meaning attributed to No. 2 hams by the innuendo was conflicting. Held, that the question of the meaning of the word was for the jury.</p> <p>2. In such a case where it is alleged that the words were spoken of one engaged in the meat business, and in the hearing of a dealer in meats, it is peculiarly for the jury to determine if they had the meaning peculiar to the meat trade ascribed to them in the innuendo.</p> <p>3. Parol evidence is always receivable to define and explain words which are purely technical and local, that is, which are not of universal use, but are familiarly known and employed either in a particular district, or in a particular science or trade, among those who use them.</p> <p>4. Where words are spoken with special reference to a particular trade or business, and charge an indictable offense involving moral turpitude, and punishable by fine and imprisonment, the averment of special damage is not essential to the maintenance of the action, and the recovery of general damages.</p>