American Sheet And Tin Plate Company v. Reason

• Decision Date: 17 December 1915
• Docket Number: 22,801
• Citation: 110 N.E. 660,184 Ind. 125
• Parties: American Sheet and Tin Plate Company v. Reason
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

110 N.E. 660

184 Ind. 125

American Sheet and Tin Plate Company v. Reason

No. 22,801

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 17, 1915

From Superior Court of Madison County; H. Clarence Austill, Judge.

Action by Louis Reason against the American Sheet and Tin Plate Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under § 1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590.)

Affirmed.

Campbell & Kidwell, for appellant.

Wilkie & Wilkie and Robert T. Wilkie, for appellee.

OPINION

Morris, C. J.

Suit by appellee for wages and statutory penalty. § 4 Acts 1911 p. 110, § 7983a Burns 1914. Appellant answered by general denial and plea of payment. Trial by court, finding and judgment for appellee. The error here assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

It is contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding. Appellee, an employe of appellant testified that in the latter's factory about 1,400 persons were employed; that it was the custom, on "pay day," for appellant to deliver to each employe a pay statement, or slip, containing the name of the employe, the amount of wages due him and a blank receipt for the employe to sign; that the employe afterward presented the statement to the paymaster, who, if the statement was correct, issued to the employe a check on a local bank in payment of wages due; that on May 15, 1912, a pay day, there was due appellee the sum of $ 35.64 for wages earned in the tinning department, and, between seven and eight o'clock a. m. of said day appellant delivered to him, at his place of work, a pay statement which recited said fact; that appellee folded the statement and placed it in the inside pocket of his coat hanging within three feet of his place of work; that from that time until noon he was not absent from his place of work, except for a brief interval when he went away to get a drink of water; that he saw no one near the coat; that at noon he put on his coat and started to the paymaster's office, when he discovered that the statement was missing. He thereupon made a search about the place of work, but could not find the paper, and reported the loss to the paymaster and demanded his wages. He was informed by that official that in the meantime the pay statement issued to appellee had been presented and the blank receipt signed in appellee's name, and a check issued payable to appellee for the amount of wages. Inquiry at the bank, where the check was payable, disclosed that it had already been paid. The pay statement and check were introduced in evidence, and appellee said that he signed neither, and that the signatures thereon, "Louis Reason," were forgeries.

There was no contention about the amount due appellee on May 15, 1912. It is appellant's theory that the amount due appellee was paid to him, and numerous witnesses testified for appellant, that in their opinions the signatures on the pay statement and check were in the handwriting of appellee. It is appellee's theory that the statement was stolen and a check for the amount was delivered to the thief by appellant. It is now contended by appellant that in view of all the evidence given, appellee's story is so improbable that it should be disregarded by this court. We cannot adopt such theory. The truth of appellee's story was not impossible, and the weight of the evidence was for the sole determination of the trial court. McKeen v. A. T. Bowen & Co. (1914), 182 Ind. 333, 106 N.E. 529.

Appellant also contends that if the statement was stolen, the evidence shows the theft resulted from appellee's negligence...