Wilson v. Cotterman

• Decision Date: 11 March 1886
• Citation: 3 A. 890,65 Md. 190
• Parties: WILSON v. COTTERMAN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

3 A. 890

65 Md. 190

WILSON

v. COTTERMAN.

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

Filed March 11, 1886.

Appeal from court of common pleas.

J. J. Wade, for appellant.

Hugh L. Bond, Jr., and Wm. Ircine Cross, for appellee.

BRYAN, J. After a verdict for the plaintiff in this case, the judgment was arrested by the court below. The declaration substantially avers that the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke certain disparaging words of the plaintiff with intent to injure him in his business, and that in consequence of the speaking of these words he was dismissed from his employment as a clerk and an assistant weigh-master. The words were as follows:

"He [meaning the plaintiff] has caused the downfall and ruin of my clerk, [meaning defendant's clerk, Lewis B. Wilson.] Will, [meaning the plaintiff] has been the ruination of my clerk. I [meaning defendant] do not want him to have anything to do with my business, [meaning that plaintiff should not weigh any goods consigned to defendant.]"

There are other words in the declaration of a similar import; but these are sufficient to illustrate the principle on which this case must be decided. Their actionable character must be tested by the question whether they impute to the plaintiff the want of any qualification such as a clerk ought to have, or any misconduct which would make him unfit to discharge faithfully and correctly all the duties of a clerk.

This was the rule declared in Lumby v. Allday, 1 Cromp. & J. 301; and it has the support of the best authorities. The learned judge who delivered the opinion of the court said:

"Every authority which I have been able to find either shows the want of some general requisite, as honesty, capacity, fidelity, etc., or connects the imputation with the plaintiff's office, trade, or business. I am of opinion that the charge proved in this case is not actionable, because the imputation it contains does not imply the want of any of those qualities which a clerk ought to possess, and because the imputation has no reference to his conduct as clerk."

The plaintiff in the case from which we have quoted, was a clerk in the Birmingham & Staffordshire Gaslight Company. He charged the defendant with speaking falsely and maliciously these words:

"You are a fellow, a disgrace to the town, unfit to hold your situation for your conduct with whores. I will have you in the Argus. You have bought up all the copies of the Argus, knowing you have been exposed. You may drown yourself, for you are not fit to live, and are a disgrace to the situation you hold."

There was no averment of special...