446 AGGRAVATION OF DA~L\UES. E. 2; Buck v. Henly, 31 Me. 558; Redway v. 446 HAYNER v. COWDEN. Gray, 31 Vt. 292; Van Tapel v. Capron, 1 AGGRAVATION OF DA .\L\GES. (27 Ohio St. 292.) Denio, 250-lt was held that the words spo­ HAY.\'Elt v. COWDEN. ken did not touch the plaintiffs In their va­ (27 O1l1o St. 292.) Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. Term, 1875. rious trades or employments. But to charge Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. Term, 1875. Error to district court, Miami county. a minister with drunkenness does have such Error to district court, Miami county. an effect. Congregations would not employ James Murray, J. T. JanYlcr, and H. G. James Murray, J. T. Janvier, and H. G. clergymen with Intemperate habits, and the Selle1-s, for plalntitr In error. Conover & Sellers, for plaintiff in error. Conover & development ot such a vice would be cause Craighead and Morris & Son, tor defendant Craighead and Morris & Son, for defendant tor speedy removal from omce. When the In en"Or. in error. question Is reduced to a mere matter ot dol­ WRIGIIT, J. The slander alleged in the ‘ lars and cents, the purity, the Integrity, the WRIGHT, J. The slander alleged In "the uprightness ot a minister's life ls his capital petition consists in falsely charging plaintiff, petition consists In falsely charging plalntitr, In this world's business. a minister of the gospel, with drunkenness. a minister ot the gospel, with drunkenness. Against the objection made, plalntltr otrer­ It is also averred that the words were spok- It is also averred that the words were spok­ ed evidence ot the ~Ith of the defendant, en of and concerning him in his ministerial en of and concerning him In his ministerial and In the charge the court said this evl· profession and pastoral oflice. The demurrer 1wofesslon o.nd pastoral office. The demurrer dence might be considered In connection admits all that is averred, and thus this admits all that Is averred, aud thus this with the question ot exemplary damages. question is raised: ' ar e question Is raised: ,Are w1ll'da which char~ We see no error In the admission ot the evi­ a minister of the gospel with drunkenness, a minister of the gospel with drunkenness, dence or the charge ot the court upon the w en spoken of him in hi$_DJ.‘.Q£eS8l01l.or_mlL- wh n smken of him in his profession Ot CDll- subject. That punitive or exemplary dam­ ing, acdonablgpersg? We answer that they 1n2, ac ona~Ie {!er se? We answer that they ages In a proper case may be given is not an are. We understand the rule to be, that are. We uni'Iersfilnd the rule to be, that open question In Ohio. In Roberts v. Ma­ wo1·ds spoken or a Jli"""on tending to !nJnre son. 10 Ohio St. 277; Smith v. Pittsburg, Ft. woLdispol§e,!l_9La_p_ersnnc.tend1n,p10_JnJ11re Jifri in bis omce. pmffflslon or trade are thns W. & 0. Ry. Co., 23 Ohio St. 10, the court him 1n 1iT§_Qifl$&._pmfessmnnnlmdaane_thns acUonable. 1 Starkie, Sland. 9; Townsh. allowed the jury t.o consider the wee.Ith of WM. 1 Starkie, Sland. 9; Townsh. Brand. & L. I 182; 2 Add. Torts, 957 (section defendant in connection with the question ot and. & L. § 182; 2 Add. Torts, 957 (section 2, c. 17, Edition ot 1876 ot this book, has n punitive damages. It, then, punishment be 2, c. 17, Edition of 1876 of this book, has a large collection ot authorities on the sub­ an object ot a verdict, a small sum would large collection of authorities on the sub- ject); 1 Am. Leed. Cas. 102; Foulger v. New­ not be telt by a defendant ot large wealth. ject); 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 102; Fouiger v. New- coinb, L. R. 2 Exch. 327; Demarest v. Bar­ The vengeance ot the law would scarcely be comb, L. R. 2 Exch. 327; Demarest v. Har- ing, G Cow. 76. appreciated, and be could atrord to pay and ing, 6 Cow. 76. Calling a clergyman a. drunkard was held slander still. There are cases which put Calling a clergyman a drunkard was held actionable In McMillan v. Birch, 1 Binney, the adml88lon ot the evidence upon this actionable in McMillan v. Birch, 1 Binney, 170; Chaddock v. Briggs, 13 Mass. 251. ground. Alpln v. Morten, 21 Ohio St. 536, In­ timates that the reason ls enable the jury 176; Chaddock v. Briggs, 13 Mass. 251. Such words are actionable because they to tend to deprive him ot the emoluments which to determine bow much plalntitr bas been Such words are actionable because they pertain to his profession. and may prevent injured. This case collects the authorities tend to deprive him of the emoluments which his obtaining employment. It ls not, as on both sides of the question, to which pertain to his profession, and may prevent counsel seem to suppose, that giving a might be added McBride v. Laughlln, 5 his obtaining employment. It is not, as clergyman this right ot action ls because his Watts, 375; Wagoner v. Richmond, Wright. counsel seem to suppose, that giving a ottlce ls higher than that ot bis fellow men. 173; Sexton v. Todd, Id. 320; 2 Green!. Ev. clergyman this right of action is because his It Is a right which belongs to all who have 249; 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 199, note 6; Horsley oiiice is higher than that of his fellow men. p1"0fesslons or callings, and In this clergy­ v. Brooks, 20 Iowa, 115; Buckley v. Knapp, It is a right which belongs to all who have men are not dUTerent trom others. 48 Mo. 153. We see no error In the admis­ professions or callings, and in this clergy- This principle ls entirely dUTerent from sion ot the evidence, or the charge ot the men are not different from others. that upon which proceeded the cases ot Hol­ court on the subject. 430; This principle is entirely different from Ilngsworth v. Shaw, 19 Ohio St. Dlal v. -There are some other questions raised by Holter, G Ohio St. 228; Altele v. Wright. 17 counsel, to :which we briefly allude: that upon which proceeded the cases of Hol- Ohio St. 238. In all these, the words Im­ The defendant asked the court to charge lingsworth v. Shaw, 19 Ohio St. 430; Dial v. puted a criminal offense, and did not relate the jury: "It they find that the words Holter, 6 Ohio St. 228; Alfele v. Wright, 17 to profession or calllng. spoken by the defendant ot and concerning Ohio St. 238. In all these, the words im- Cpon the trial ot the case, it was Insisted the plaintiff were untrue, and that the de­ puted a criminal offense, and did not relate by defendant that the words were not spo­ fendant has not reasonable cause to believe to profession or calling. ken of the plaintiff In his character as a min­ them to be true, yet. It they are satisfied Upon the trial of the case, it was insisted ister. The court fairly left this to the jury, trom the evidence that the defendant did be­ by defendant that the words were not spo- nnd !mid It' they were not so spoken, they lieve them to be true, such state ot tacts ken of the plaintiff in his character as a min- would find for defendant. The jury find this would not warrant a verdict for punitive or ister. The court fairly left this to the jury, Issue for the plaintiff, and In the tace or exemplary damages, but tor compensatory and said if they were not so spoken, they that finding, It ls Impossible for us, sitting damages only." With which request the court refused to comply, but, on the con­ would find for defendant . The jury find this ns a court of error, to say that they were not F:poken ot the plaintiff In hie character or trary, charged the jury that such was not issue for the plaintiff, and in the face of capacity as a clergyman. If they were as the law, to which the defendant then and that finding, it is impossible for us, sitting we have seen, they are actionable. there excepted. as a court of error, to say that they were not In the caRes cited by defendant-Lumly v, We do not understand the law ot slander spoken of the plaintiff in his character or All<lny, 1 Tyrw. 217; Brayne v. Cooper, 5 to be, that It ls a defense that the slanderer capacity as a clergyman. If they were as \ln-s. & W. 24!:1; Ayre v. Craven, 2 Adol. & believed his words to be true, when he had we have seen, they are actionable. In the cases cited by defendant—Lumly v. Allday, 1 Tyrw. 217; Brayne v. Cooper, 5 Nit'es. & W. 249; Ayre v. Craven, 2 Adol. & E. 2; Buck v. Henly, 31 Me. 558; Redway v. Gray, 31 Vt. 292; Van Tapel v. Capron, 1 Denio, 250—it was held that the words spo- Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-17 14:12 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.35112105421491 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-google ken did not touch the plaintiffs in their va- rious trades or employments. But to charge a minister with drunkenness does have such an effect. Congregations would not employ clergymen with intemperate habits, and the development of such a vice would be cause for speedy removal from oflice.