Hardaway v. Sherman Enterprises, Inc.

Decision Date21 October 1974
Docket NumberNo. 49702,No. 2,49702,2
Citation210 S.E.2d 363,133 Ga.App. 181
PartiesShirley Mae HARDAWAY v. SHERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., et al
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

E. B. Shaw, Atlanta, for appellant.

Barwick, Bentley & Binford, M. Cook Barwick, James L. Ford, Atlanta, for appellees.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EBERHARDT, Presiding Judge.

Shirley Mae Hardaway brought suit against Sherman Enterprises, Inc. and John H. Mosley seeking damages for an alleged libel. She alleged that the defendant Mosley, with the consent of his employer, Sherman Enterprises, charged her with the offense of forgery when he stated to city detectives R. P. Pitts and H. E. Brumbelow that 'she (meaning plaintiff) was standing by the cash register (in a liquor store where he worked) and signed that person's name on the check.' The statement was made in the presence of John Bowden.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, presenting in support thereof an affidavit of Mosley in which he asserted that the plaintiff had cashed the check at the liquor store where he worked, and that subsequently the police detectives came to the store to investigate a charge that the indorsement on the check had been forged, and that pursuant to their questioning, and not otherwise, he made the statement to the detectives; that all statements which he made relative to the plaintiff were made pursuant to the questioning of the police and were never made for any purpose other than in answer to the police inquiry.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and plaintiff appeals. Held:

Statements made in good faith pursuant to investigation by police or other officers authorized to investigate crime or criminal activity are made in the performance of a public duty and are privileged. Code § 105-709(1). If such were not the case these officers would find it virtually impossible to ferret out the facts and prosecute those who have violated the criminal laws. It is difficult at best, but the law does not put roadblocks before those who may have information and prevent the communication of it to the officers. Indeed, it is made the duty of one having such information to report it to those in authority. Williams v. State, 126 Ga.App. 302(1), 190 S.E.2d 807.

'Communications which would otherwise be slanderous are protected as privileged, if made in good faith by the injured person in the prosecution of an inquiry regarding a crime which he believes to have been committed upon his property, and for the purpose of detecting the criminal or bringing him to punishment.' Taylor v. Chambers, 2 Ga.App. 178, 58 S.E. 369. The privilege thus accorded is upon the grounds of public policy. Chapman v. Battle, 124 Ga. 574(1), 52 S.E. 812; Wall v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 18 Ga.App. 457(3), 89 S.E. 533; Ventress v. Rosser, 73 Ga....

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1992
    ...for statements to police and absolute privilege for statements to grand jury or prosecutor); see also Hardaway v. Sherman Enter., Inc., 133 Ga.App. 181, 210 S.E.2d 363, 364 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 2405, 44 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975) (applying conditional privilege for statemen......
  • State ex rel. McGraw v. Telecheck Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 16, 2003
  • Fenelon v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 1990
    ...criminal or bringing him to punishment.... The privilege thus accorded is upon the grounds of public policy." (Hardaway v. Sherman Enterprises, Inc., supra, 210 S.E.2d at p. 364; see also Jones v. Wesley, supra, 424 So.2d at p. 1111.) Other jurisdictions phrase the rule of qualified privile......
  • Fridovich v. Fridovich
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1992
    ...220, 87 A. 727, 728 (1913); Newark Trust Co. v. Bruwer, 51 Del. (1 Storey) 188, 141 A.2d 615, 617 (1958); Hardaway v. Sherman Enterprises, 133 Ga.App. 181, 210 S.E.2d 363, 364 (1974) (construing statute), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 2405, 44 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975); Indiana Nat'l Bank ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT