Taylor v. Pratt

• Decision Date: 18 November 1937
• Citation: 195 A. 205
• Parties: TAYLOR v. PRATT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

195 A. 205

TAYLOR

v. PRATT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 18, 1937.

On Motion from Superior Court, Androscoggin County.

Action by Alva Taylor against Harold S. Pratt. Verdict for plaintiff. On defendant's general motion for new trial.

Motion overruled.

Argued before DUNN, C. J., and STURGIS, BARNES, THAXTER, and HUDSON, JJ.

Charles A. Pomeroy and Brann & Isaacson, all of Lewiston, for plaintiff. Edmund C. Darey, of Livermore Falls, and Frank T. Powers, of Lewiston, for defendant.

HUDSON, Justice.

By general motion the defendant asks this court to order a new trial in this action of tort brought to recover damages which the plaintiff claims she sustained by reason of his procurement of her discharge as an employee of one Ham.

The plaintiff, a married woman, was employed on October 12, 1935, as a clerk in Ham's drug store in Livermore Falls. Intermittently for a period of approximately 2 1/2 years she had worked for him, her latest service having started some 5 weeks before October 12th.

The defendant, a physician and surgeon, had been a valued customer of Mr. Ham for about 20 years. Previously to October 12th, the plaintiff's husband had cut his foot with an ax and the defendant attended him. It seems that the plaintiff and her husband were not satisfied with the doctor's services and had consulted other surgeons. Rumors had reached the defendant that a claim for malpractice was to be made against him. Although he denied it, the jury might have found that on October 12th the defendant, resentful, whether justified or not, visited the drug store on the day mentioned for the purpose of having a talk with the plaintiff about the prospective malpractice suit and possibly then of procuring her discharge. That there was a conversation in the store on that day between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no question; but as to what was said is in irreconcilable dispute. The plaintiff's version is that after the defendant had inquired for the proprietor and learned that he was out, he asked when he would return. She answered, "five o'clock" and then, she continues, "he said— he gave me to understand and my husband to understand, where we were concerned, he would have no more to do with and if I was to continue working in that store he would withdraw all prescriptions and see that none of his patients came there to have prescriptions filled." Then she added that he told her he would later see Mr. Ham concerning her.

On the other hand, the defendant, admitting that the plaintiff told him what the other surgeons had said about her husband's foot, and that there was an expectation on their part to make him pay damages, denied explicitly that he made any inquiry as to when Mr. Ham would return, that he said he would have no more to do with them, that if she remained a clerk in the drug store he would withdraw all of his prescriptions and see that none of his patients came there to trade.

Following this conversation, whatever it was, the plaintiff did not see her...