Shull v. Raymond
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Dakota county, Crosby, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
This is an action for slander, in charging a married woman with having committed adultery. The complaint sets out the words, which, in the meaning given them by the dictionaries, would not be actionable, because not imputing any offence to the plaintiff. But the complaint also alleges that the words are slang words, in common use, and mean sexual intercourse between man and woman, and that they were used by defendant, and understood by the hearers in that sense. The evidence was sufficient to justify *67the jury in finding that the words were used and understood in that sense.
On the trial…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Clancy v. Daily News CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Israel v. IsraelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- State v. AdamsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Smith v. Missouri Fidelity & Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Rosquist v. D. M. Gilmore Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892