Ebersoll against Krug and Wife

Ebersoll against Krug and Wife. Lancaster Friday, May 31. slander ofhusban^ a,lcl , cannot be ]Oined ¡,, the sanie sc- „ „r See 8'went-roorth2&2. ■N ERROR. THE declaration in this case set forth, that “ whereas the said Philip Kruse and Maru his wife are both true honest r ° J . and upright citizens of the commonwealth oi Pennsylvania., an d as such from their nativity hitherto have demeaned themselves &c., and the said Mary for herself had deservedly obtained a good name &c., and had never been charged or suspected of the crimes of adultery or fornication &c., and that neither the said Philip nor Mary his wife have been charged with or committed any of the crimes of larceny, burglary, arson, robbery or any other crime or offence, which if they or either of them were convicted of, would subject them to an imprisonment in the cells of the penitentiary of the city of Philadelphia, or in any other place of confinement or imprisonment of criminals; yet the said Abraham the defendant, well knowing &c. and maliciously intending the said Philip Krug and his wife not only into scandal and infamy among their neighbours and others to bring, but to subject them to the infamous punishment provided by law against thieves, robbers, burglars &c. and against fornication and adultery, on the first of June &c. at the county aforesaid, the following false and scandalous German words of and concerning the said Philip Krug and Mary his wife in the presence &c., which said German words have in the English language the import and interpretation following; “ George “ Krug” (the son of the said Philip the plaintiff meaning) “ is not the son of the said Philip Krug, but the son of a a certain Peter Ox,” (thereby meaning that the wife of the said Philip Krug had committed adultery with the said Peter Ox.) And again “ George cannot be his son, he is so “ much larger;” (meaning that George Krug cannot be the son of the said Philip Krug*, and therefore again meaning that the wife of the said Philip had committed adultery.) And again addressing himself to Samuel Good and John Hansen who were driving an ox, “ your ox is not so heavy “ as the ox that ran off with Philip Krug's wife;” (thereby meaning that the said Mary had run off with the said Peter Ox, and had committed adultery with him.) “ I will put “ Philip Krug and his wife in the cells in Philadelphia, “ and if that won’t do, I will put them in the workhouse;” (thereby meaning that the said Philip Krug and Mary his wife had committed some heinous offence or offences which would subject them to imprisonment in the cells of the Philadelphia jail and penitentiary.)” Various errors were assigned, but the material one was, that there was a misjoinder of action, in uniting pretended causes of action on the part of the wife, with similar causes of action on behalf of the husband. Elder and Hopkins for the plaintiff in error. Laird and Montgomery for the defendants in error. [MAJORITY — Tilgijman C. J.] Tilgijman C. J. and the whole court agreed that the judgment must be reversed, because the slander of the husband and slander of the wife were here joined in one action, and damages sought for the slander of both at the same time. Judgment reversed.