Skip to main content
· 7/5/1916

Viss v. Calligan

Citations

  • 91 Wash. 673
  • 158 P. 1012

Syllabus

<p>Libel and Slander — Matters Privileged — Judicial Proceedings— Exceeding Privilege. Where a party on the witness stand stated of his opponent, “He is a thief; he stole two stands of bees of mine,” the words were not privileged if the statement was voluntary and not in reply to any question, and was not relevant or pertinent to the subject of inquiry.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Instructions. On appeal by defendant from a judgment for slander, by words uttered in a judicial proceeding, it is harmless error that the materiality and relevancy of the words was submitted to the jury, when the only controversy was as to whether the words were uttered.</p> <p>Libel and Slander — Pleading and Proof — Special Damages— Words Actionable Per Se. Words imputing a crime are actionable per se, and general damages for mental distress may be recovered without alleging or proving special damages.</p> <p>Appeal and Error — -Preservation of Grounds — Objections. Error' cannot be predicated upon the court’s failure to strike all the unresponsive part of an answer of a witness where the objection to the answer was general, and the court was not advised as to the particular part objected to, and no further motion to strike was made.</p> <p>Libel and Slander — Matters Privileged — Judicial Proceedings— Question for Jury. Words uttered by defendant, after entry of judgment by a justice of the peace, demanding the arrest of plaintiff for theft, are privileged only if he sought the arrest in good faith and believed he was disclosing the facts for the purpose of advising the justice.</p> <p>Same — Actions—Instructions. In an action for slander, where there was no evidence that the defamatory words were repeated by the one in whose presence they were uttered, a requested instruction that plaintiff was not entitled to damages by reason of such hearer’s repetition of the defamatory words was properly refused.</p> <p>Same — Damages — Excessive Yerdict. An award of $1,000 for general

Judges: Main

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.