Matts v. Borba

Citations

• 4 Cal. Unrep. 691
• 37 P. 159
• 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1239

Syllabus

<p>Slander—Imputing TTnchastity.—In an Action for Slander, for calling plaintiff “valhaea,” plaintiff and several witnesses (all illiterate Portuguese) testified that the word was in common use among the Portuguese, and meant “whore.” Defendant’s witnesses, some of whom were educated Portuguese, testified that the term “valhaea” did not mean “unchastity,” but that it meant “knave, rogue, crafty,” and that the word “puta” was in common use, meaning “whore.” Held, sufficient to support a verdict that defendant intended to impute unchastity to plaintiff.</p> <p>Slander—Evidence.—After Defendant had Examined his witnesses, and rested, plaintiff gave evidence that the word “valhaea” meant “whore.” Held, that, if the evidence was improperly admitted, defendant was not prejudiced, there being already sufficient evidence to support the verdict.</p> <p>Trial—Remarks of Counsel.—It was Agreed That the Cause should be submitted without argument, but plaintiff’s attorney said: “I want to make this statement to the jury: That plaintiffs, having commenced this case in the superior court, cannot recover any costs unless they recover $300 damages.” And the court said, “You must not make those statements.” Held] that, if defendant thought the court had not sufficiently informed the jury not to consider the remarks, he should have asked for an instruction to that effect, and that a new trial would not be granted on account of such remarks.</p>