Jones v. Grindal

• Decision Date: 08 June 1922
• Citation: 117 A. 308
• Parties: JONES v. GRINDAL.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

117 A. 308

JONES

v. GRINDAL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 8, 1922.

Exceptions and Motion for New Trial from Supreme Judicial Court, 'Hancock County, at Law.

Action by Harry S. Jones against Grace M. Grindal. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions and moves to set aside verdict. Motion and exceptions overruled.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ.

Peters & Crabtree, of Ellsworth, for plaintiff.

W. R. Pattangall, of Augusta, and Hale & Hamlin, of Ellsworth, for defendant.

PHILBROOK, J. Action for slander. The case is before us upon defendant's exceptions and upon motion to set aside plaintiff's verdict in the sum of $1,427.00.

Statement of the Case.—The plaintiff is a business man, 43 years of age, with a wife and three children dependent upon him for support. For a period of 10 or 12 years he was employed as bookkeeper, accountant, and salesman for C. W. Grindal. The defendant is the widow of Grindal and administratrix of his estate. In his lifetime Grindal was a retail dealer in groceries and grain. After his decease the defendant continued the business with the plaintiff in her employ. The charges made against the plaintiff by the defendant, as alleged in the writ, were such as might seriously affect the reputation of the plaintiff and might materially interfere with obtaining employment in any community where those charges were made. They directly related to the lack of honesty and integrity of the plaintiff, and were couched in language which imputed criminal conduct upon his part. The plaintiff claimed that the charges were maliciously made, and demanded both actual and punitive damages.

The defendant, while denying the use of the language set forth in the writ, admitted that, after the plaintiff's employment with her had ceased, certain prospective employers of plaintiff called upon her, without invitation upon her part, to inquire as to the character, honesty, and ability of the plaintiff. She says that whatever statements she then and there made were confidential and privileged, that no malice actuated her conduct. She also sought justification on the ground that her statements were true, or that she had reasonable cause to believe them to be true.

The Motion.—In addition to the general verdict for the plaintiff, special findings of fact submitted to the jury were determined by the following questions and answers.

(1) Was the plaintiff guilty of dishonesty in his dealings with the defendant as stated by her? Answer, No.

(2) Were the statements made by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff made maliciously? Answer, Yes.

The charge of the presiding justice, contained in the record, has been examined carefully and is found to contain a most clear, complete, and correct statement of the various principles of law involved in the contentions of both parties. By the general verdict and special answers, the jury found upon these questions of fact, viz.: That the statements alleged in the plaintiff's writ and declaration were made; that they were slanderous; that they were made maliciously even if they were privileged; that they were not true; and that the defendant did not have reasonable cause to believe them to be true.

Such findings warrant not only actual but punitive damages. The amount of the latter, within reasonable limits, has a wide range depending, among other things, upon the general situation, the character, and station of the parties, and the wealth of the person to be punished. Under the familiar rules relating to the stability of jury verdicts, both as to liability and amount of damage, the defendant has not persuaded us that the motion should prevail.

The Exceptions.—Since financial standing of the defendant may be shown as affecting the amount of punitive damages the plaintiff, subject to exceptions, offered the inventory of the estate of the intestate husband of the defendant. This was objected to on the ground that it brought into the case the...