Mitchell v. Glassman

• Decision Date: 02 May 1922
• Docket Number: No. 17217.,17217.
• Citation: 241 S.W. 962
• Parties: MITCHELL v. GLASSMAN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

241 S.W. 962

MITCHELL v. GLASSMAN.

No. 17217.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 2, 1922.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Granville Hogan, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by N. A. Mitchell against Sam Glassman. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Philip C. Wise and N. M. Edwards, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Crittenden E. Clark, of St. Louis, for respondent.

DAUBS, J.

This is an action for slander. The suit was instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, where, on a trial to a jury, a verdict and judgment was had in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $600. Defendant appeals.

The petition upon which the cause was tried alleges" that the plaintiff is a duly licensed attorney at law, engaged in the practice of his profession in the city of St. Louis; that be was at The time also engaged in the business of conducting a hotel in said city; that, on November 1, 1918, defendant, who was the owner of the building in which plaintiff conducted said hotel, came to said hotel and called the plaintiff, in —

"the presence of J. T. Dixon and Jessie Bennett and divers persons whom the plaintiff at this time does not know, a thief, a grafter, a liar, and told the plaintiff that he was a dead-beat."

The petition further charges that all the words spoken by defendant aforesaid were spoken willfully, maliciously, and without any cause whatsoever, and for the sole purpose of injuring plaintiff in his business, profession, and character, and prays for $25,000 as damages.

The answer is a general denial.

It appears that plaintiff had rented a building from defendant at Twenty-Ninth and Morgan streets, in the city of St. Louis, which was used by plaintiff for hotel purposes. The defendant, being desirous of selling the property, came to plaintiff and informed him that a prospective buyer for the building would be around and that, when he came, plaintiff should tell him that plaintiff was paying $300 a month rent for the place. When the prospective purchaser came to the hotel, plaintiff took him over the building and showed same to him. When plaintiff was asked by such prospective buyer what rent he was paying, plaintiff answered "$100," which was, in fact, the amount of plaintiff's rental for the building.

A few days later, on November 1, 1918, defendant came to the hotel and according to plaintiff's testimony the following conversation took place:

"He came and said, `You knock, my business to the devil; you prevent me from putting on a deal with that man.' I say, `I do not, Mr. Glassman.' He said, `Yes; you don't tell him what I tell you.' I tell him I would not lie for anybody. He rushed up and said, `You * * * damn thief; you are a thief and a crook; you prevent me from putting on a sale and carry on my business. I have an agreement with that man and I surely would have sold this place, but you don't tell him what say;' and he repeated that about three times. I said to him, `Mr. Glassman, if you say that I will sue you.' He said, `Go on and sue me, you * * * damn thief; I put you out in the street. You stay in this place and don't pay any rent.' And he said many other things, and I brought an action the next day."

Jessie Bennett, on behalf of plaintiff, testied that she was present at the time of this alleged conversation. The following questions and answers appeared in her testimony:

"A. Well, he says to the lawyer, `You tried to throw me in that deal.' Lawyer Mitchell said, `Tried to throw you in what deal?' He said. `You didn't tell this man what I told you. I said to tell this man you were paying $300 a month and you didn't tell him.' He said, `No, Mr. Glassman, I wouldn't tell any lie for anybody.' He said, `You God-damn thief, you are a liar; you are a crook.'

"Q. And what was his attitude towards Mr. Mitchell? Was he talking to Mr. Mitchell? A. Yes, sir; he was talking to Mr. Mitchell.

"Q. And what did Mr. Mitchell say to him? A. He told him not to repeat those words any more, that he would sue him. He said, `Go ahead and sue me.'

"Q. Did he repeat them? A. Yes, sir; he repeated them the second time."

Witness testified further that most of the guests in plaintiff's hotel left immediately after this disturbance. It appears that there were some 45 roomers or guests in the place on November 1, 1918.

Witness Wm. M. Riley, for plaintiff, testified that he heard defendant on the occasion aforesaid say to plaintiff: "You knocked my deal. You damn crook, you thief, you knocked my deal; you didn't tell that fellow what you was to tell him"; and that plaintiff replied, saying: "Well, I couldn't tell him that."

Witness Robert H. Dowell testified that defendant, on the occasion referred to, said to plaintiff: "Say you knocked me out of a deal;" to which plaintiff replied: "I wouldn't...