Walrath v. Nellis
New York Supreme Court
Present, C. L. Allen, James, Rosekrans and Potter, Justices. The complaint avers the uttering of these words with reference to the plaintiff’s testimony, in a suit pending before a justice of the peace, viz : “ P. J. W. is honestly mistalcen, hut you are wilful,” with similar expressions, varying the reference to the plaintiff from the second to the third person.
Read the full summary
Present, C. L. Allen, James, Rosekrans and Potter, Justices. The complaint avers the uttering of these words with reference to the plaintiff’s testimony, in a suit pending before a justice of the peace, viz : “ P. J. W. is honestly mistalcen, hut you are wilful,” with similar expressions, varying the reference to the plaintiff from the second to the third person. It was distinctly alleged that “ P. J. Wagner,” the first individual referred to, had been a witness in the same cause, and that by this charge the defendant meant that the plaintiff was “ wilful in his testimony,” so rendered; and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court—Pottee, Justice.
If the words charged in the first count of the complaintareactionableyer se, the omission in the innuendo, that the words were understood by those who heard them, in a sense to make them actionable, is entirely immaterial.
This allegation is only necessary where the words are either ambiguous, ironical or insinuated. Words in the latter sense, are equally actionable as if made in direct terms; but in pleading in such cases, it is' necessary to aver that the defendant, by means of the words so insinuated or so ironically or ambiguously spoken, meant to be understood…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gibson v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Gilman v. LowellNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Andrews v. WoodmanseeNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Coons v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848