Scullin v. Harper

• Decision Date: 11 February 1897
• Docket Number: 253.
• Citation: 78 F. 460
• Parties: SCULLIN v. HARPER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

78 F. 460

SCULLIN v. HARPER.

No. 253.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

February 11, 1897

Charles W. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

Luke H Hite, Charles P. Wise, and George F. McNulta, for defendant in error.

Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges.

WOODS Circuit Judge.

This was an action of slander. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Matters of inducement and innuendo omitted, the several counts of the declaration charge the utterance of the following words: 'He is a dangerous man.' 'He is a perjurer.' 'He is a perjurer and a blackmailer. ' 'He belongs to a gang that is organized in East St. Louis to extort money from our street railroad. ' 'He went to Springfield, and swore to a lot of lies. ' 'Another member of the gang is a relative of his, a Dr. Anthony, and between them they worked up a scheme, and got a judgment against us. ' These things, it is alleged, were said by Scullin, the plaintiff in error, concerning Harper, the defendant in error, in the presence and hearing of divers persons, on the 27th day of July, 1893, at East St. Louis. Error is assigned upon the rulings of the court in excluding evidence, and in giving and refusing instructions to the jury. Prior to July 27, 1893 Harper, who is a carpenter, had been in the employment of the East St. Louis Ice & Cold Storage Company as foreman of the ice gang, and shortly before that date had gone to Springfield as a witness for the plaintiff in a case in the United States circuit court against the East St. Louis Electric Street-Railroad Company, in which the plaintiff in error was interested as a stockholder, and had testified adversely to the company. The plaintiff in error, who resides in St. Louis, was also interested in the East St. Louis Ice &amp Cold Storage Company, owning a large amount of the stock, but was not an officer, agent, or manager of the company. W. S Hodges, also a resident of St. Louis, was a director and the secretary and treasurer of the company, and in the absence of the president had supervision of its affairs; and it was in a conversation with him, and in the hearing of none other, on July 23, 1893, at St. Louis, that the plaintiff in error uttered concerning the defendant in error any of the obnoxious expressions complained of. Hodges, the only witness called to prove that the words were spoken, testified that between 11 and 12 o'clock on that morning Scullin came to his office in St. Louis, and requested him to go with him after dinner to the ice factory, saying 'that there was a bad man there he wanted to get rid of'; that thereupon he named Harper, and used concerning him some of the expressions set out in the declaration; that two hours later he met Scullin, went with him across the river to East St. Louis, where, after and in consequence of conferences concerning which the testimony heard and offered is to some extent conflicting, Harper was notified of his dismissal from the service of the company. Scullin, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that when he called on Hodges in St. Louis he said, 'I told Hodges what I had heard, and asked him to go over to East St. Louis with me, and investigate the matter,' and that on their arrival at the office of the ice plant he requested the bookkeeper to bring in Harper's time book and to refer to a certain date, and thereupon was asked to state what the time book showed 'as to the time that Harper worked on the day of the accident, and where he worked. ' The plaintiff objected to this question, and the court sustained the objection. Being then asked what he said to Hodges about Harper, and where it was said, he answered: 'It was in that office. I said, 'If this is true, then this is a dangerous man to have around here.' The gist of the conversation was in that office, after Mr. Hodges had investigated and found out what I desired to have him find out. It was after that. I made no remarks about this plaintiff until after we had found out what I desired Mr. Hodges to find out. I then said to Mr. Hodges, 'If this be true he is a dangerous man to have around this plant.' ' To the question whether he told Hodges to what facts he alluded by 'if this be true,' an objection was sustained, and the further question what the witness and Hodges both understood by 'this...