Duckworth v. Diggles

• Decision Date: 26 February 1885
• Citation: 139 Mass. 51,29 N.E. 221
• Parties: Armerod Duckworth v. James H. Diggles[1]
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

139 Mass. 51

29 N.E. 221

Armerod Duckworth v. James H. Diggles^[1]

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

February 26, 1885

Argued January 22, 1885.

Middlesex.

Contract for work and labor. In the Superior Court the case was submitted to a referee, by agreement of parties and under a rule of court, whose judgment was to be final. The referee found in favor of the plaintiff. At the hearing before Pitman, J., on motion of the plaintiff for acceptance of the award and for judgment, the following facts appeared:

At the referee's examination of the matters submitted to him which continued at intervals through a period of four weeks neither party was represented by counsel; and neither the plaintiff, the defendant, nor the referee is a lawyer. The first notification given the defendant was contained in a letter of the referee, enclosing a copy of the plaintiff's bill for $ 5330.54, and saying: "If you have anything to say why you should not pay these charges, I should like to hear from you. I should prefer you should treat these items separately. If you would prefer an interview, please let me know when you will be in Lowell. I shall have no time except after 7 p. m. Does the bill for goods invoiced agree with the invoices from the bleachery?" The defendant answered, requesting the items of which the sum of $ 5330.54 was made up. The referee replied enclosing a second copy of the bill, and saying "I have yours of the 19th, calling for the items of invoice $ 5330.54. I shall not send the items. I want to know from you if the invoice is correct. If it is not correct, I want your objections and your items of objections, if you think it necessary to explain your view of the matter . . . . Your neglect to reply to enclosed items contained in Mr. Duckworth's bill, or satisfactorily account to me why they should not be there, will compel me to assume they are correct. I want to do what is right for both, and if you have any facts you must give them to me at once and avoid delay and a long correspondence. I shall try and get the matter out of my hands as soon as possible."

The defendant testified that he was surprised at the notifications received by him, and at the sharp refusal to furnish him with the particulars of the plaintiff's case, as submitted to the referee; but that, assuming and taking for granted that the referee had been informed as to the proper and legal method of discharging the duty imposed upon him, he complied so far as he was able with the demands of the referee, until an interview wherein the referee informed him that he had heard the plaintiff separately, and had intended to hear him (the defendant) so, and to make up his finding without any meeting of the plaintiff and defendant.

The referee, who was called as a witness by the plaintiff, denied that he told the defendant that he had heard the plaintiff separately, but testified as follows: "Previous to hearing the case, I had both parties make their statements. That was before the reference. After I was appointed referee I called on Duckworth for his written charges against Diggles. I was careful to avoid any talk with him. I thought it would not be right to either party to hear the other alone. I did not hear any talk from Duckworth except in presence of Diggles. In reply to my letter, Duckworth sent...