Terry v. Hubbell
| Decision Date | 15 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 86804,86804 |
| Parties | Robert M. TERRY v. George T. HUBBELL et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
John P. Hodgson, Hartford, for plaintiff.
Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, for defendants.
This is an action for libel. The relevant circumstances established by the evidence and pleadings are as follows: In 1955, the plaintiff became a director and the president of the Seymour Manufacturing Company and continued to hold these positions until October, 1957. His salary was $42,000 a year. At a stockholders' meeting held at that time, there was a marked division of opinion among the stockholders concerning the management of the affairs of the corporation, and a majority of the stock was voted for a slate of directors which did not include the plaintiff. He thereby became ineligible to serve as an officer of the corporation, and a directors' meeting following the stockholders' meeting elected the named defendant as president of the corporation as successor to the plaintiff. At the same time, the other defendant, Keefe, was elected as executive vice president and treasurer.
About one week after the defendants assumed their new positions, Hubbell's secretary, who also served as secretary for Keefe and for Raeburn, who had been company treasurer but was demoted to assistant treasurer at the time of Keefe's designation as treasurer, placed on Hubbell's desk a 'pay roll voucher form.' This form had been designed by the plaintiff for office use in connection with changes in pay roll and was an official company record for internal corporate use only. The form was designed to record almost every conceivable bit of pertinent information about an employee in so far as it related to his employment and compensation. One section was devoted to details concerning 'Separation from Service.' In this portion of the form there were listed across the page on one line several common causes for separation from employment, with small square boxes between each stated cause, it being obvious that it was intended that a mark in the appropriate box would indicate for the company record the reason for separation from service. The printed reasons for separation were listed in order across the page as 'advance notice,' 'layoff,' 'discharged for cause,' 'resigned,' 'retired,' 'probitionary [sic] work not accepted,' and 'deceased.'
Hubbell, using the form for the first time, examined the stated reasons for separation and believed that of the reasons indicated on the form that indicating 'resigned' most nearly approximated the situation, placed an 'x' in the small box in front of the word 'resigned' and signed the form in quadruplicate. He had previously directed that the plaintiff be compensated through October 31, and this direction was noted on the form. This direction provided an unearned benefit of $1200 for the plaintiff, since his services had been terminated on October 21. A close examination of the form and the position of the printed boxes with relation to the reasons for separation would have indicated that, although preceding the first reason there was the same blank space as was occupied by the boxes, in fact there was no box there, so that the form was designed to have the appropriate box following the specific reason marked, rather than the box immediately preceding the specific reason. As a result, although Hubbell believed he was using the appropriate box to indicate that the plaintiff had resigned, and therefore placed the 'x' in the box before that word, that box was in fact intended to apply to the preceding reason--'discharged for cause.' Hubbell in fact did not believe that the plaintiff had been discharged for cause and had no intention of so indicating.
After Hubbell signed the form, it, in the course of regular office routine, went to the desk of the defendant Keefe. He had never seen it before, noted Hubbell's signature and added his initials following the words on the form 'reviewed by.' Their secretary then placed the quadruplicate form in an envelope, sealed it with scotch tape and forwarded it in usual office routine to Henry, the pay roll supervisor. Henry signed the form in the space indicating it was recorded by the paymaster, removed one copy for his records and placed this copy in a locked metal cabinet. Only he and his assistant had keys to this locked cabinet. He did not show the form to any other person nor copy it nor cause a copy to be made. The remaining three copies he sent in a sealed envelope to Raeburn, then assistant treasurer, to be kept in a locked vault in the treasurer's office. This was the usual office procedure in connection with pay roll changes affecting executives of the corporation.
The next undisputed incident was a letter from the plaintiff's attorney dated November 8, 1957, to Hubbell, advising him that the existence of the pay roll voucher had been brought to his attention and demanding a retraction. Hubbell replied to the demand, stating taht a clerical error had been made, that the reason for Terry's separation was his failure to be re-elected, that the voucher was being corrected and that the correction would be given the same publicity as had been given to the original. All four copies of the original voucher were then destroyed and a 'corrected voucher' was processed.
The circumstances and simultaneous events, including the close friendship of the devoted Raeburn with the plaintiff and the association of both with the dissenting stockholders in connection with litigation, involving the Seymour Manufacturing Company, simultaneously brought by the attorney for this plaintiff, strongly support the assertion of the defendants that it was Raeburn, the plaintiff's friend and demoted treasurer, who clandestinely procured a photostatic copy of the voucher from the locked corporate records and thereby permitted knowledge of its existence to extend beyond the immediate office staff concerned with it. Whether this is what happened and whether or not the action was a violation of § 53-267 of the General Statutes, as asserted by counsel for the defendants, are, however, immaterial to a decision of the present proceedings.
The present writ, summons and complaint, seeking damages of $100,000 for the alleged libel, were issued on November 16. The news of the suit, coupled with the simultaneous litigation involving the Seymour Manufacturing Company, received wide publicity in a newspaper account in the Ansonia 'Evening Sentinel.'
It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff's direct testimony was limited to his identification and that he was president of the corporation from 1955 to 1957. There was no evidence adduced to support the allegation that he was 'a person of unimpeachable integrity and outstanding ability.' Also, by amendment to the complaint dated March 20, 1958, the plaintiff expressly disclaimed any claim for special damages, stating, 'The damages claimed are general damages only, i. e. for the injury to the plaintiff's reputation and for the humiliation and mental suffering which the libel caused him.' There was no evidence of any actual damage to the plaintiff nor any that he had actually suffered any distress or embarrassment or humiliation. The plaintiff relies upon the rule that when defamatory words are actionable per se, the law conclusively presumes the existence of injury to the plaintiff's reputation which need be neither pleaded nor proved. See Urban v. Hartford Gas Co., 139 Conn. 301, 308, 93 A.2d 292; Proto v. Bridgeport Herald Corporation, 136 Conn. 557, 571, 72 A.2d 820; 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander § 262, p. 378.
Counsel on both sides have exhaustively researched the law on actions for defamation and copiously briefed the authorities on the multitude of fine points involved in the determination of a libel action. Their labor is indicated by the forty-three paragraphs of the defendants' claims of law, which include 'Claims of Law,' 'Further Claims of Law,' 'Supplemental Claims of Law,' and addendum to a claim, 'Final Claims of Law,' and 'Ultimate Claims of Law.' It is, however, unnecessary to the decision of this case to pass upon and review the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Tradewind Aviation, LLC.
...to the trial court in its amended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to set aside the verdict—Terry v. Hubbell, 22 Conn.Supp. 248, 167 A.2d 919 (1960), Ricci v. Crowley, 333 Mass. 26, 127 N.E.2d 652 (1955), and Elias v. Youngken, 493 A.2d 158 (R.I.1985). The additional case......
-
Leyshon v. Diehl Controls North Am. Inc.
...York had found the statement terminated “for cause” to be actionable, the court in Skopp agreed with the court in Terry v. Hubbell, 22 Conn.Supp. 248, 167 A.2d 919 (1960), explaining as follows: “[In Terry ], it was held that the statement was not libel per se because ‘[t]aken in their “nat......
-
Nelson v. Tradewind Aviation, LLC
...to the trial court in its amended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to set aside the verdict—Terry v. Hubbell, 22 Conn. Supp. 248, 167 A.2d 919 (1960), Ricci v. Crowley, 333 Mass. 26, 127 N.E.2d 652 (1955), and Elias v. Youngken, 493 A.2d 158 (R.I. 1985). The additional ca......
-
Skopp v. First Federal Sav. of Wilmette
...475 N.E.2d 451), however, we think that the better conclusion is that reached by the Connecticut Superior Court in Terry v. Hubbell (1960), 22 Conn.Supp. 248, 167 A.2d 919. There, it was held that the statement was not libel per se because "[t]aken in their 'natural and ordinary meaning,' t......