Christopher v. Akin
| Decision Date | 19 May 1913 |
| Citation | 214 Mass. 332,101 N.E. 971 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER v. AKIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Mayhew R. Hitch, of New Bedford, for defendant.
The plaintiff was a journeyman painter in the employ of the defendant, and was at work on the house of one Tillinghast. Tillinghast complained to the defendant that some of his men had stolen a putty knife and other property belonging to him. The defendant recompensed Tillinghast for the property and testified that he was told by one of his men that the plaintiff had admitted to him that he took the putty knife. The men were paid off by the defendant at his shop Saturday night--their time being made up to Wednesday. Their pay was handed to them in envelopes. When a man was discharged his envelope contained his pay up to Saturday night. The plaintiff's envelope contained his pay in full, less what the defendant had paid Tillinghast for the property, with a bill for it. There were four or five men in the shop waiting to be paid off, when it came the plaintiff's turn to be paid. The plaintiff opened his envelope and counted the money and found the bill. The plaintiff testified that he asked the defendant what that meant, and that the defendant said in response, 'Do you want to know in front of all these men?' and he said, 'Yes,' whereupon the plaintiff testified that the defendant said, 'That is the stuff you stole from the Tillinghast job.' What was testified to by the plaintiff as having been said by the defendant was contradicted by the defendant and three other witnesses who were present. What the defendant testified that he said was that 'Tillinghast had complained to me that certain stuff had been taken and I thought he took it and the bill was for that.' The other witnesses stated in substance that the defendant said that the bill was for things taken from the Tillinghast job. The verdict of the jury must be taken to have settled, however, that the plaintiff's account of what took place was the correct version.
The defendant asked the presiding judge in substance to instruct the jury that any statements by the defendant imputing theft would be privileged if made in explanation of and in answer to a request by the plaintiff to know what the bill for the putty knife and other articles in his envelope meant, and if made after the defendant had asked him if he wanted him to tell him before the people in the shop and he had answered that he did. The court declined to instruct as thus requested, but instructed the jury in substance, amongst other things, that if the defendant had said to the plaintiff that Tillinghast had missed the articles and claimed that they had been taken by the defendant's men and the defendant had recognized the claim and had paid Tillinghast and that he believed that they had been taken by the plaintiff and felt that he had a right to charge them to him, he would have had a right to say it and there would have been no slander. But he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial