Myrtle Hollman v. Catherine Brady

Good Law
16 Alaska 308·233 F.2d 877·1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3219
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 195614809_1California953 words

Opinion

Opinion

Denman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Territory of Alaska awarding appellee $1,500 for slander. Appellant contends that her statement was not slanderous per se, that the District Court erred in not instructing the jury that the slanderous statement must have proximately caused appellant's damage, and that irregularities in the selection of a jury constituted reversible error.

The uncontradicted testimony is that appellant stated to appellee’s husband in the presence of others, “You’re not so smart. Your wife is an ex-whore from Butte, Montana,” and as a result appellee’s husband would doubt her when he had been drinking and subject her to verbal abuse about the matter. This caused appellee to lose weight and suffer emotional distress.

Appellant argues that her statement about appellee was not slanderous per se under Alaska law, and consequently appellee had the burden of proving special damages resulting from it. At common law in the Nineteenth Century a statement imputing unchastity to a woman, or even professional unchastity, was not considered slanderous per se. This was a consequence of an earlier division of powers between the civil and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.