{
  "id": 2927870,
  "name": "Helen Zaucha, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Smolinsky, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Zaucha v. Smolinsky",
  "decision_date": "1917-07-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,017",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 158"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2864,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "sha256": "d6623d02ca9b7d93dd8eaa69e215aa0156c2d45d1d55b4f992987cf1d2790750",
    "simhash": "1:2b4cf437d00d1258",
    "word_count": 469
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Helen Zaucha, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Smolinsky, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Libel and slander, \u00a7 145 \u2014 when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict. In an action of slander to recover damages for the utterance of slanderous words, charging plaintiff with having committed fornication with a married man, evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.\n4. Libel and slander, \u00a7 142* \u2014 when evidence that plaintiff was not guilty of charge of fornication is admissible. In an action to recover damages for the utterance of slanderous words, charging plaintiff with having committed fornication with a married man, where defendant pleaded the truth as a defense, held that it was not error to admit testimony that plaintiff did not commit fornication with the party named by defendant.\n5. Libel and slander, \u00a7 37* \u2014 what is slanderous per se. A charge of fornication is slanderous per se.\n6. Libel and slander, \u00a7 21* \u2014 when malice presumed. Malice will be presumed by the use of words actionable per se.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank Peska, for plaintiff in error.",
      "A. F. W. Siebel, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Helen Zaucha, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Smolinsky, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,017.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13a \u2014 what does not constitute variance between statement of claim and proof in action of slander. In an action for slander in the Municipal Court of Chicago, where the statement of claim alleged that defendant had used words concerning plaintiff, intending thereby to charge that she had committed fornication with a married man, and did not purport to confine the defamatory utterances to a discourse between plaintiff and defendant, held that it was proper to show not only utterances by the defendant in the presence of the plaintiff, but also those made to other parties in her absence.\n2. Libel and slander, \u00a7 58* \u2014 when remarks are not privileged. In an action of slander for charging plaintiff with fornication with a married man, held that the contention that the remarks were privileged, because made to defendant\u2019s employer, was without merit where it appeared that the statements were made simply as an excuse for defendant\u2019s own misconduct and that the remarks were made to other employees.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry P. Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Helen Zaucha, plaintiff, against Fred Smolinsky, defendant, to recover damages for the utterance- of slanderous words concerning plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff for $200, defendant brings error.\nFrank Peska, for plaintiff in error.\nA. F. W. Siebel, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 184,
  "last_page_order": 185
}