{ "id": 2650710, "name": "Charles Kuhlman, Appellant, v. Emil Kiefer, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Kuhlman v. Kiefer", "decision_date": "1909-03-04", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "162", "last_page": "164", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "147 Ill. App. 162" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "15 Ill. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 436578, 436595 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/15/0228-01", "/ill/15/0228-02" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ill. 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2452367 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/29/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ill. App. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5129905 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/49/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5258949 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/84/0148-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 231, "char_count": 3512, "ocr_confidence": 0.515, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08319693541978702 }, "sha256": "e47728226f7b8aaf47f19cdccfbfb7e50134d81508425bf8b2c3ff742bba602d", "simhash": "1:1d07a062be06a4ff", "word_count": 595 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Charles Kuhlman, Appellant, v. Emil Kiefer, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Creightok\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action in case, for slander, in the City Court of East St. Louis, by appellant against appellee. Trial by jury. At the close of appellant\u2019s evidence the court directed the jury to return a verdict finding the defendant not guilty. The jury returned a verdict as directed by the court, a motion for new trial was denied and judgment rendered on the verdict.\nThe declaration consisted of one count, setting up that appellant was a regularly ordained and acting clergyman and was pastor in charge of St. Elizabeth\u2019s Boman Catholic Church, and that he had charge of the revenues of said church; and it is charged in the declaration that appellee spoke and published of and concerning appellant, in the hearing of divers persons, the false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory words following,\u2014that is to say, \u201che (meaning the plaintiff) is using the church (meaning said St. Elizabeth\u2019s Church) money in building his (meaning plaintiff\u2019s) houses.\u201d The words charged, standing alone, are: He is using the church money in building his houses.\nTwo witnesses were produced on behalf of appellant, Mr. Grace and Mr. Yoss. Mr. Grace testified that appellee said \u201cFather Kuhlman was building houses with the church\u2019s money;\u201d and Mr. Yoss testified that appellee said \u201cFather Kuhlman is building houses with the church money.\u201d\nCounsel for appellant contend the law to be, that \u201cin an action for slander, it is sufficient to prove the substance of the words charged.\u201d This we do not understand to be a correct statement of the law as it is held in this state. It is not sufficient to prove the substance of the words charged in the declaration. The law requires that enough of the exact words charged be proved to establish the particular slander charged. It is not sufficient to prove other words of like meaning\u2014equivalent words or expressions will not suffice. Searcy v. Sudhoff, 84 Ill. App. 148. So strict is this rule in its application that words proved to have been spoken in the second person cannot be accepted as meeting the requirements of a declaration charging them to have been spoken in the third person. Becker v. Schiller, 49 Ill. App. 606. The mere \u201cdifference in the tense of the word proved and that alleged, will defeat a recovery\u2014as the use of \u2018has\u2019 for \u2018had.\u2019 \u201d Wilborn v. Odell, 29 Ill. 456; Sanford v. Gaddis, 15 Ill. 228.\nOf the ten words charged in the declaration in this case, viz.: \u201cHe is using the church money in building his housesthe witness Voss only uses five, viz.: is - building - houses - church - money; and the witness Grace only uses three, viz.: building-houses-money. The words proved fall far short of establishing the particular slander charged.\nThe trial court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of appellee.\nThe judgment of the City Court of East St. Louis is affirmed. Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Creightok" } ], "attorneys": [ "Maurice Y. Joyce and James A. Farmer, for appellant.", "Wise, McNulty & Keefe, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Charles Kuhlman, Appellant, v. Emil Kiefer, Appellee.\nSlander\u2014What proof of words charged required. The law requires that enough of the exact words charged be proved to establish the particular slander charged. It is not sufficient to prove other words of like meaning\u2014equivalent words or expressions will not suffice.\nAction in case for slander. Appeal from the Circuit Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. W. J. N. Moyers, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at -the August term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1909.\nMaurice Y. Joyce and James A. Farmer, for appellant.\nWise, McNulty & Keefe, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0162-01", "first_page_order": 180, "last_page_order": 182 }