Rosenberg v. Mason
Decision Date | 17 September 1931 |
Citation | 160 S.E. 190 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | ROSENBERG v. MASON. |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.]
Error to Law and Chancery Court of City of Roanoke.
Action by notice of motion for judgment by Mary Etta Mason against Harry Rosenberg. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Reversed, and final judgment entered for defendant.
Argued before CAMPBELL, HOLT, EPES, HUBGINS, and GREGORY, JJ.
A. B. Hunt and Samuel M. Weinstein, both of Roanoke, for plaintiff in error.
Victor H. Friend and Horace M. Fox, both of Roanoke, for defendant in error.
Harry Rosenberg owned and operated a retail store in the city of Roanoke under the name of National Clothiers, and employed Herman Feldman as the manager of this business. Feldman in his capacity as manager had authority to employ and discharge the other employees. Mrs. Mary Etta Mason, a young woman 28 years of age, had been employed by Rosenberg before Feldman had been employed and continued to work in the office department of this business from February, 1926, until she was discharged by Feldman on October 10, 1929.
In May, 1930, Mrs. Mason instituted her action, by notice of motion for judgment, in the court of law and chancery of the city of Roanoke against Harry Rosenberg as the sole defendant, seeking to recover $5,000 for insulting words used to her by Feldman at the time he discharged her.
The action was brought under section 5781, Code Va. 1919, for the use of insulting words. The notice, which contains but one count, alleges that Harry Rosenberg, through his agent, servant, and representative, Herman Feldman, "spoke of and concerning and to the undersigned (Mary Etta Mason) the false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory and insulting words following, which are from their usual construction and common acceptation construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace, * * * to-wit:
Feldman, introduced as a witness by Rosenberg, admitted that he spoke to Mrs Mason substantially the words alleged other than those which we have italicized, but denies that he used the italicized words.
Rosenberg filed a plea of not guilty and his grounds of defense, but filed no plea of justification. His grounds of defense are rather a rambling statement, but it in effect set up the following defenses: (1) Feldman did not speak to or of Mrs Mason the words alleged in the notice; (2) such words as were spoken by Feldman to Mrs. Mason were spoken on a privileged occasion, and the privilege of the occasion was not abused; (3) if the words alleged were used by Feldman to Mrs. Mason, Rosenberg did not know of, acquiesce in, ratify, or confirm them; (4) If Feldman ever used to Mrs. Mason words which were false, scandalous, or malicious, "it was not within the scope of his employment and was without the knowledge of this defendant."
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000 upon which the court entered judgment.
The only witness introduced by the plaintiff, other than three character witnesses, was the plaintiff herself. The portions of her testimony material to the questions here involved are quoted below without indication of the omitted questions and answers.
Direct examination:
Cross-examination:
There are material conflicts between the testimony of the plaintiff and that of Harry Rosenberg, Herman Feldman, and other witnesses for the defendant, the most important of which is as to whether Feldman spoke to Mrs. Mason the words alleged in the notice which we have italicized. However, as there is nothing in the evidence introduced by the defendant which in any way tends to strengthen Mrs. Mason's case as made by her own testimony, it is not necessary to consider further the evidence which the court permitted to be introduced by the defendant.
While ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar
......v. Garcia, [181 Miss. 491] 16 F.2d. 734; Gust v. Montgomery Ward, 80 S.W.2d 286;. Parr v. Warren-Lamb, 236 N.W. 291; Rosenberg v. Mason, 160 S.E. 190; Walgreen Co. v. Cochran, . 61 F.2d 357; Newell, Libel & Slander (4 Ed.), sec. 296; 17 R. C. L. 344. . . ......
-
England v. Daily Gazette Co., 10930
......873]; Rigney v. W. R. Keesee & Co., supra; Stewart v. Riley, supra; also consult Chaffin v. Lynch, 83 Va. 106, 1 S.E. 803, 809; Rosenberg v. Mason, supra [157 Va. 215, 160 S.E. 190]; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Watson, 4 Cir., 55 F.2d 184.' . Usually, though a publication ......
-
Gazette, Inc. v. Harris, s. 830758
...... See M. Rosenberg & Sons v. Craft, 182 Va. 512, 518, 29 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1944). Upon such publication, 1 malice was inferred and damage to reputation was presumed. ...1116, 1117 (1961). And, unless the otherwise libelous statement was privileged or the defendant could establish its truth, Rosenberg v. Mason, 157 Va. 215, 228, 160 S.E. 190, 195 (1931), the publisher was liable for compensatory damages. Upon proof of common-law actual or express malice, ......
-
Gonzales v. Com., Record No. 1351-03-4.
......Thus, because evidence is not admissible for one purpose does not mean that it is not relevant or admissible for some other purpose. Rosenberg v. Mason, 157 Va. 215, 236, 160 S.E. 190, 197 (1931). "It is a time-honored principle of evidence law that, in general, if evidence is admissible ......