Reynolds v. Southern Grocery Stores

• Decision Date: 27 December 1939
• Docket Number: 14990.
• Citation: 6 S.E.2d 470,192 S.C. 293
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. SOUTHERN GROCERY STORES, Inc.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

6 S.E.2d 470

192 S.C. 293

REYNOLDS v. SOUTHERN GROCERY STORES, Inc.

No. 14990.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 27, 1939

Legge & Gibbs, of Charleston, and Thomas, Cain & Black, of Columbia, for appellant.

J C. Long and Arthur Rittenberg, both of Charleston, for respondent.

BONHAM Justice.

This is an action for slander. The plaintiff is a minor of the age of nineteen years and appears by his Guardian ad Litem. The defendant is a corporation.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was employed as a clerk in defendant's store situate at 1093 King Street, in the City of Charleston, South Carolina. That at the times mentioned in the complaint, one B. F. Henderson was employed as Superintendent of defendant's stores in the district which included the store above named in the City of Charleston. That Henderson came to the store on or about May 3, 1938, in the discharge of his duties as such Superintendent, and while plaintiff was on duty; the Superintendent went to the cash register, counted the money therein and checked the cash register and left the store; a few minutes later he returned and again counted the money and checked the cash register. He asked plaintiff: "Alvo where is the dollar for the purchases the lady just made from you?" To which plaintiff replied: "No lady has just spent a dollar with me. What lady are you talking about?" The Superintendent said: "The lady who just came in here and bought four packages of cigarettes, a can of lunch tongue and a jar of mayonnaise." The plaintiff "No lady has bought anything like that from me. The only woman who has come in the store since you left was a negro woman who made a five cent purchase, a loaf of bread. You can see for yourself from the register that the last sale made was a five cent purchase." Again the Superintendent stated: "I saw the five cent purchase, I am not talking about that; I am talking about the dollar that the lady spent with you." The plaintiff replied: "I told you that no lady had spent a dollar with me." Thereupon the Superintendent stated: "I see that you have a very bad memory; if your memory is as bad as that we have no further use for you." Thereupon, he paid plaintiff the wage due him and discharged him.

Plaintiff brought action for slander, seeking to recover damages in the sum of $3,000. He alleged that by the language used and by his conduct, the Superintendent intending to injure plaintiff, charged him with the crime of larceny, and said language and conduct were so understood by those who were present and heard it. That said accusation was false and malicious, and was intended to injure, defame and slander plaintiff.

For answer, defendant pleads ignorance of the allegations of paragraph 1 of the complaint; admits its corporate capacity and that at the times stated B. F. Henderson was in its employ as superintendent, as alleged, and that plaintiff was in its employ as stated. It denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and all allegations not admitted or denied.

For a second defense: That the alleged slanderous statement was a privileged communication and made upon a privileged occasion.

For a third defense: That if B. F. Henderson made and published the alleged slanderous and defamatory matter of and concerning plaintiff, which he denies, such publication was outside and beyond the scope of his authority and duties as such Superintendent, and defendant is not liable or responsible therefor.

The defendant moved for nonsuit, directed verdict and new trial, which motions were denied.

The defendant's counsel, at the close of all the testimony, withdrew the second and third defenses and rested upon their general denial.

The jury found for the plaintiff.

The defendant appeals upon eight exceptions, which counsel treat under two heads, viz.:

"1. Whether the Court erred in refusing to hold as a matter of law that the words were not defamatory and could not have been so understood under the circumstances.

"2. Whether the Court erred in refusing to hold as a matter of law that the words were not actionable per se, and that there could have been no recovery therefor in the absence of allegation and proof of special damages."

The questions made by these two exceptions have been so clearly and explicitly decided against the contention of appellant that we deem it only necessary to cite and quote a few of the apt opinions of this Court.

In the case of Rowell v. Johnson et al., 170 S.C. 205, 170 S.E. 151 the words alleged to be slanderous were: "*** you are short in your register to the extent of $5.25, and you need not return in the morning for work, but you are discharged and need not return." This Court said quoting from the case of Davis v. Johnston, 2 Bailey 579: ...