Dempsky v. Double
| Decision Date | 27 November 1956 |
| Citation | 386 Pa. 542,126 A.2d 915 |
| Parties | John DEMPSKY, Appellant, v. Alma DOUBLE and Esther Smith. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Coleman Harrison, Herbert G. Labbie, Robert Engel, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Walter T. McGough, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
Before STERN, C. J., and JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
In this libel action the trial court entered a compulsory nonsuit which was affirmed by the court en banc, and plaintiff appeals.
In May, 1950, a so-called 'free-work probe' was being conducted in the City of Pittsburgh. It consisted of an investigation into the possible misuse of public property by local officials, especially the use of county vehicles by county employees for private purposes, and it was much publicized at the time in the newspapers.
On May 9, 1950, one of the defendants, Esther Smith, wrote a letter to the Controller of Allegheny County as follows:
'Dear Sir:
'This seems to be an oppotune time to bring certain facts to your attention, and, as a taxpayer, to ask for an immediate investigation and an explanation regarding the use of County cars and trucks by a County employee for hauling materials used in the remodeling of a house which he purchased in 1948 when said property was up for sale for taxes.
'In the summer of 1948, Mr. John Dempsky, a county employee purchased the Overholt property, located [386 Pa. 545] at 7211 Thomas Boulevard, (and adjoining our property). * * *
'Ever since this property was purchased in the summer of 1948, Mr. Dempsky has used various County cars and trucks * * * to transport materials such as cement, lumber, plaster, lime, gravel, sand, pipe, coal, acetylene tanks for welding, etc. to this property at 7211 Thomas Blvd., and has used County cars to haul away the debris, ashes leaves and rubbish in the yard, etc. etc. * * *'
There followed a statement of particular occasions on which County cars were parked, sometimes in the daytime, sometimes all night, in front of the plaintiff's property. The letter then proceeded:
'* * * I think I have given you sufficient information to warrant an immediate investigation. * * *
'People are becoming more tax conscious every day, and are not going to stand idly by and see county employees appropriate county cars and equipment for their own personal and private use, to say nothing of time which is spent during working hours to transport materials in county cars.
'Very truly yours,
'(Signed) Esther Smith
'(Mrs.) Esther Smith
Copy--Mrs. R. Templeton Smith, President Allegheny County League of Women Voters * * *.'
John Dempsky, referred to in the letter, was an automobile mechanic employed by the County of Allegheny in a garage where county vehicles were kept and serviced.
Responding to the request for an investigation contained in the letter, the Controller conducted elaborate hearings extending over a period of several weeks, as a result of which he concluded that Dempsky had in fact used county vehicles for his own private purposes in violation of county regulations, and that these violations were flagrant and occurred in connection with repairs and alterations being made on his property. On the basis of the Controller's report to that effect the County Commissioners discharged Dempsky from his employment. He then brought the present libel action against Esther Smith and her sister Alma Double.
At the trial plaintiff argued that Mrs. Smith's letter accused him of the larceny of county materials, but the court rejected this contention and correctly held that the letter charged only the improper use of county vehicles and contained no allegation of theft; accordingly the court excluded evidence offered to show that plaintiff had not stolen anything. It was, of course, the duty of the court to determine as a matter of law whether the language used in the alleged libelous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Future v. Better Business Bureau
...upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, in a proper manner and based upon reasonable and probable cause." Dempsky v. Double, 386 Pa. 542, 546-47, 126 A.2d 915, 917 (1956). Only after the defendant established privilege did the plaintiff bear the burden of demonstrating that the privil......
-
Mathis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
...Co., 411 Pa. 167, 180, 191 A.2d 662 (1963); Montgomery v. Philadelphia, 392 Pa. 178, 182, 140 A.2d 100 (1958); Dempsky v. Double, 386 Pa. 542, 546-47, 126 A.2d 915 (1956); Morgan v. Bulletin Co., 369 Pa. 349, 354, 85 A.2d 869 (1952); Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 404, 414, 2 A. 513 (1886). The......
-
Montgomery v. City of Philadelphia
...3 Restatement, Torts § 613 (1938).3 Montgomery v. Dennison, supra note 2, 363 Pa. at pages 262-265, 69 A.2d 520; Dempsky v. Double, 1956, 386 Pa. 542, 546-547, 126 A.2d 915; McGaw v. Hamilton, 1898, 184 Pa. 108, 114, 39 A. 4; Cook v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., 1912, 241 Mo. 326, 145 S.W. 480;......
-
Montgomery v. Philadelphia
... ... 1955); 3 Restatement, Torts § 613 (1938) ... [3] Montgomery v. Dennison, supra, ... note 2, 363 Pa. at 262-265; Dempsky v. Double, 386 ... Pa. 542, 546-547, 126 A.2d 915 (1956); McGaw v ... Hamilton, 184 Pa. 108, 114, 39 A. 4 (1898); Cook v ... Pulitzer Publishing ... ...