Walsh v. Judge

• Decision Date: 05 January 1932
• Citation: 179 N.E. 264,258 N.Y. 76
• Parties: WALSH v. JUDGE et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

258 N.Y. 76

179 N.E. 264

WALSH

v.JUDGE et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 5, 1932.

Action by James J. Walsh against Charles A. Judge, Alex Kelso, and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (233 App. Div. 651, 249 N. Y. S. 803) affirming a judgment of Trial Term entered on a verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, defendant Kelso and other defendants appeal.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

See, also, 223 App. Div. 423, 228 N. Y. S. 497.

LEHMAN and HUBBS, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

Jeremiah T. Mahoney, Vincent L. Leibell, and Charles Maitland Beattie, all of New York City, for appellants.

Donald Marks, Clarence M. Lewis, and W. N. Seligsberg, all of New York City, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

Plaintiff was president of a local branch in New York City of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. On January 16, 1925, charges were preferred against him by defendant Kelso that, on November 26, 1924, at a meeting of the district council of the brotherhood, he acted in a boisterous manner, refused to come to order, refused to retire when requested, used profane and indecent language, insulted the officers and members of the council, and obstructed the business of the organization to such an extent that the chairman was obliged to summon an officer of the law before plaintiff would retire. He attended and took part in the trial of these charges before a committee of the district council, which found him guilty and recommended a fine of $100. It was imposed by the council, but plaintiff failed to pay, and he was dropped from his union. He brought an action for reinstatement, and in that action the court incidentally found that the charges were true, but the essential conclusion of law was that the district council was without jurisdiction to try them. Plaintiff was reinstated.

The supplemental complaint in the present action alleges that defendants, some of whom are members of the local and others members of the district council, maliciously conspired in October, November, and December, 1924, to cause plaintiff to be expelled from membership in the national brotherhood and to lose his position as president of the local. After this action was begun, new charges were preferred against him, and for a second time he was expelled. He is no longer a member. In this supplemental complaint are alleged facts relating to the second expulsion, but the action is for damages growing out of the former one. In his brief, plaintiff argues that, the illegality of the first expulsion having been established, no issue remains except the question whether that expulsion was accomplished as the result of a conspiracy among defendants. He urges that his guilt or innocence of the charges which ended in the first ouster is immaterial.

On the trial of the present action, the evidence relating to the truth of the charges was conflicting. There was testimony that at the meeting on November 24, 1924, plaintiff was drunk and disorderly; there was also directly contrary testimony. The court charged that the jury might ‘consider whether or not the charges on which the plaintiff was tried before the district council were well founded or unfounded, and if unfounded, whether they were known by the defendants to be unfounded. Did the defendants, in other words, prefer these charges against the plaintiff knowing them to be false, or believing them to be true? Did they institute those charges before the district council knowing that body not to have jurisdiction, or believing that it did?’ Defendants excepted to the court's refusal to charge that, if the jury ‘find that Walsh was guilty of the matters with which he was charged in the district council proceedings in November, 1924, their verdict must be for defendant.’ The effect of this part of the main...