Libby v. Towle

• Decision Date: 08 May 1897
• Parties: LIBBY v. TOWLE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

38 A. 171

90 Me. 262

LIBBY

v. TOWLE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 8, 1897.

(Official.)

Action on the case by Moses M. Libby against George W. Towle. There was a verdict for plaintiff for $3,000, and defendant moves for new trial. Sustained.

This was an action on the case for slander, in which there were 10 distinct and separate utterances declared on and set out in the plaintiff's declaration, as follows, viz.: (1) "That he took the note, and that Libby had destroyed the note." (2) "That Libby signed the note, but took it." (3) "That Libby knows where that note is." (4) "You took that note, and have got it, or know where it is, or have destroyed it." (5) "Moses, there is a hard report around town about you. They say you took that note, and have got it, or know where it is, or have destroyed it." (6) "I think Moses stole, or took, or knows where it is." (7) "Libby took. I know it." (8) "Doddarn it all, I can't produce the note. You stole the note, and know where it is, or destroyed it." (9) "He knew Mose Libby stole that note, dod darn him." (10) "That said plaintiff knew where the note was, or had made way with it."

The jury rendered a verdict for $3,000 in favor of the plaintiff.

J. P. Swasey, for plaintiff.

Geo. P. Clifford and E. P. Gentleman, for defendant.

WALTON, J. This is an action of slander, and the plaintiff has obtained a verdict for $3,000. It is the opinion of the court that this amount is clearly excessive.

Briefly stated, the case is this: The plaintiff and his wife, after living together about nine years, concluded to separate. The title to their property, real and personal, was held by the wife. But she agreed that, if her husband would pay her $650 for the furniture, she would give him a deed of the real estate. She did so, and took from him what she supposed was a note for that sum, payable in one year, and a mortgage of the furniture to secure it. She left these papers with the defendant, who was her uncle, for safe-keeping. Her uncle soon afterwards discovered that the note was not signed, and he called the attention of the plaintiff to that fact. The latter said it was an oversight, and offered to sign the note then; and the papers were handed to him to enable him to do so. The defendant left the plaintiff for a few minutes to attend to some other business, and he says that when he returned he put the envelope, which he supposed contained the note and the mortgage, into a pigeonhole in a desk in his store. But afterwards, when the year had expired, and the plaintiff and his wife came to him, and called for the papers, the note was missing; and that, after a most diligent search, he could not find it. And, so far as appears, it never has been found. Vexed at the loss of a paper which had been left with him for safekeeping, and provoked by what seemed to him to be the...