Slander — Words imputing the want of chastity given in a foreign language — Amending the statement of claims — Extent of damages.
In an action of slander it appeared that the slanderous words, imputing the want of chastity to the plaintiff, were made in a foreign language and in the presence of a third party. In the statement as originally filed the words were laid in the third person and in English. The statement was amended giving the words in the second person and in a foreign language with their alleged English equivalent. There was testimony that they were so uttered and understood. Under such circumstances it was not error to permit the amendment of the statement of claim.
Practice C.P. — Pleadings — Case at issue.
The Superior Court will not reverse for want of a plea after a trial on the merits.
Amending statement of claims after the statute of limitations has run.
An amendment introducing a new cause of action will not be permitted after the statute of limitation has run in favor of the defendant; but if the amendment is merely a restatement of substantially the same cause of action, though in a different form, the variance in form will not prevent the amendment.
Argued April 28, 1925.
OPINION BY LINN, J., July 9, 1925:
This appeal is from judgment on a verdict in an action of slander. The words, uttered in the presence of another, imputed want of chastity to the plaintiff. In the statement of claim as originally filed, the words complained of were laid in the third person and in English. That statement was amended, giving the words in the second person and in a foreign language with their alleged English equivalent. There Was testimony that they were so uttered and understood. The case was submitted to the jury in a charge of which the appellant does not complain. The verdict established the facts as alleged by plaintiff.
Appellant complains that the amendment was permitted after the statute of limitations had run: Stoner v. Erisman, 206 Pa. 600, is against him. He also complains that a verdict was not directed for him; the dispute in the facts had to be settled by the jury. He also relies on the fact that the case was not at issue when it was tried, because he had filed no plea; in Noble v. Erwin, 50 Pa. Super. 72, we held that it was too late to raise that objection after going to trial.
Judgment affirmed.