McKenzie v. The William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1921
• Docket Number: 22,253
• Citation: 183 N.W. 516,149 Minn. 311
• Parties: A. J. McKENZIE v. THE WILLIAM J. BURNS INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

183 N.W. 516

149 Minn. 311

A. J. McKENZIE v. THE WILLIAM J. BURNS INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC

No. 22,253

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 24, 1921

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 for slander. The case was tried before Jelley, J., who at the close of the testimony granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Slander -- privileged communication -- malice.

1. The conversation in which the slanderous language is alleged to have been used was qualifiedly privileged, and plaintiff failed to prove actual malice.

Slander.

2. The fact that the slanderous language was incidentally overheard by persons in an adjoining room, was not such a publication as would remove it from the protection of the privilege.

F. D Larrabee, for appellant.

Selover Schultz & Mansfield, for respondent.

OPINION

TAYLOR, C.

Action for slander in which the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

Plaintiff had been in the employ of the Minneapolis branch of the defendant, and shortly after he left their employ defendant claimed that he had overdrawn his account, and sent for him to come to the office. He went to the office and was taken into the private office of Mr. Rogers, the manager of the Minneapolis branch, where he found Mr. Rogers and William J. Burns, the president of the defendant corporation. He charges that, in the controversy that ensued between himself on one side and Mr. Rogers and Mr. Burns on the other concerning his account, Mr. Burns called him a "damn thief." Although Mr. Burns and Mr. Rogers deny that this language was used, there was sufficient evidence on the part of plaintiff to make this issue a question for the jury.

Plaintiff concedes, in effect, that the circumstances were such that the conversation between the parties during this interview, and the communications then made, were qualifiedly privileged. The statement having been made on a privileged occasion, plaintiff could not recover unless he proved actual malice on the part of Burns; that is, that Burns made the statement from ill-will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. Peterson v. Steenerson, 113 Minn. 87, 129 N.W. 147, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 674; Hansen v. Hansen, 126 Minn. 426, 148 N.W. 457, L.R.A. 1915A, 104; Froslee v. Lund's State Bank of Vining, 131 Minn. 435, 155 N.W. 619; Patmont v. International C.M. Assn. 142 Minn. 147, 171 N.W. 302.

It seems quite clear that, in consequence of an error of the bookkeeper in failing to charge him with a payment previously made, plaintiff had been paid more salary than was actually due him. Burns and Rogers...