Sylvester v. D'ambra., 8852.

• Decision Date: 23 July 1947
• Docket Number: No. 8852.,8852.
• Citation: 54 A.2d 418
• Parties: SYLVESTER v. D'AMBRA.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

54 A.2d 418

SYLVESTER

v.D'AMBRA.

No. 8852.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 23, 1947.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Walter Curry, Judge.

Action of trespass on the case for slander and false arrest by Emma S. Sylvester against Thomas D'Ambra. Plaintiff was nonsuited in the Superior Court, and she brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained and case remitted for new trial.

William H. McSoley and William H. McSoley, Jr., both of Providence, for plaintiff.

George F. Treanor, of Pawtucket, for defendant.

BAKER, Justice.

This is an action of trespass on the case for slander and false arrest. In the superior court the plaintiff was nonsuited and she thereupon duly prosecuted her bill of exceptions to this court.

The plaintiff was the only witness. Without going into details here, she testified in substance that she was employed as a cook by the defendant, who lived in Pawtucket in this state and whose family consisted of himself and his two sons, about eleven and fifteen years of age respectively. However, she worked in that position only about two weeks as she found that she had to do all the housework, and she planned to leave defendant's house September 19, 1945. After supper on that date the defendant came in with a stranger, who later identified himself as a police inspector. Following the asking of a few questions he told the plaintiff that she was under arrest and took her in a police car to the police station. There he asked her about the disappearance of $90 from the defendant's home; told her that she had been accused of stealing this sum of money; and examined the contents of her wallet. She was detained in the inspector's office at the station for about forty minutes, after which she was taken back by the inspector to the defendant's house where her room and personal belongings were searched. The plaintiff denied taking any money from the defendant and the search disclosed nothing. Thereafter the plaintiff was allowed to leave defendant's house.

The declaration in this case contains two counts. The first count alleges that the defendant slandered the plaintiff by falsely accusing her of stealing $90 from him; and the second alleges that the defendant maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause directed and caused the plaintiff to be falsely arrested and imprisoned. To this declaration defendant filed several pleas.

The law in this state governing the granting of a motion for a nonsuit is well settled. In Douglas v. Matzner, 51 R.I. 1, at page 2, 149 A. 861, 862, the court used the following language: ‘On a motion for nonsuit the evidence is to be considered in any reasonable way which is most favorable to the plaintiff. The weight of the evidence is not a relevant consideration. If there is some evidence to support plaintiff's case, a nonsuit is improper.’ Upon consideration we are of the opinion that in the instant case the trial justice committed error in granting the defendant's motion for a nonsuit. In our judgment the plaintiff in her testimony presented sufficient evidence on both counts to require the defendant to go forward with his defense.

As to the slander count the plaintiff testified in substance that the police inspector said at the station that she had been accused by the defendant of stealing from him $90 in $10 bills. The defendant was present when this statement was made and said nothing. This testimony standing unanswered, as we must consider it in passing upon this exception, prima facie would support a finding that the defendant made the statement in question to...