
    Paul Kuhne, Plaintiff, v. Simon Ahlers, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term,
    December, 1904.)
    Slander.
    It is no slander to say of one that he is a “ swindler ”; it is a word of abuse and does not charge crime.
    
      Semble, if said of one in his office or calling such word is slanderous per se, whether imputing crime or not.
    Action for slander. Motion by the plaintiff for a new trial, the complaint having been dismissed on the- trial for not stating facts sufficient, etc. i
    The words complained of were as follows:
    “ Who are you anyhow you are a bankrupt and a swindler. I know why you had to leave Berlin and Staten Island. Tour children are thieves and were arrested for stealing, and you, Kuhne (meaning plaintiff) are a God-damned son of a bitch ”.
    Walter L. Bunnell for plaintiff.
    Harold O. Knoeppel for defendant.
   Gaynor, J.:

It has been settled ever since the case of Savile v. Jardine (2 H. Black. 531) that to say of one he is a swindler is no slander. The word is classed as one of abuse, merely, like “ rogue ” and cheat ”, instead of charging a crime, which.is necessary to make oral words a slander when spoken of one in his general character (Chase v. Whitlock, 3 Hill, 139; Odgers, p. 62; Townshend, sec. 173, and cases there collected). Cases like Forest v. Hanson (1 Cranch C. C. 63) are not to the contrary, for there the complaint was that the word was spoken of the plaintiff in his official position as director of a bank; and any words spoken of one in his office or calling of such a character that the law will presume that they injure him therein are a slander ;per se, whether they impute a crime or not.

The motion for a new trial is denied.  