Beers v. Payment

• Decision Date: 07 April 1893
• Citation: 95 Mich. 261,54 N.W. 886
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BEERS v. PAYMENT.

54 N.W. 886

95 Mich. 261

BEERS v. PAYMENT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 7, 1893

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Cornelius J. Reilly, Judge.

Action for slander by Archibald W. Beers against Charles M. Payment. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Sloman, Moore & Duffie, for appellant.

William Look and H. F. Chipman, for appellee.

GRANT J.

The slander alleged in this case is that defendant said to one Tressa Ehlert: "You will soon have a kid of your own. You are in the family way by Archie Beers, [meaning the plaintiff.] You were in the shavings with Archie Beers till ten or eleven o'clock." Defendant pleaded the general issue. He denied using the language stated, and testified that he said to her: "My little girl, unless you mend your ways, before a great while you may have one of your own." The conversation was occasioned by Miss Ehlert going to the shop where defendant was at work, and carrying in her arms her nephew, a baby. The shop was owned by William R. Beers, the brother of plaintiff. He had had several girls in his employ, among whom was Miss Ehlert. Several of the witnesses either were or had been employes of William R. Beers. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that plaintiff and Miss Ehlert were alone in one of the shop rooms one evening till between 9 and 10 o'clock and that they were seen in a compromising position, which defendant claims was the occasion for the remark made to her. Plaintiff and Miss Ehlert testified that they went there to get the pay that was due them. This testimony was elicited upon cross-examination by defendant's counsel. On redirect examination Mr. Sloman, plaintiff's counsel sought to show how much was due and how long it had been due. This testimony was excluded. The fact that plaintiff and Miss Ehlert asked for their pay on the night in question, that something was due them, and that Mr. Beers refused payment, is conclusively shown by the testimony of Mr. Beers himself. It was entirely immaterial how much was due, or how long it had been due.

William R. Beers, a witness for the defendant, had testified on direct examination to the conversation between defendant and Miss Ehlert. On cross-examination plaintiff's counsel, referring to this conversation, asked, "Just tell what he said to her, and what she said in reply." The court, on its own motion excluded the question on the ground that the witness had...