Webber v. Vincent, 9 N. Y. Supp. 101 Contra.
Defamatory letter after termination of employment. National Cash Register Co. v. Salling, 173 Fed. 22.
[495]. In Christopher v. Akin, 214 Mass. 332, the plaintiff was a journeyman painter in the employ of the defendant, and was at work on the house of one Tillinghast. Tillinghast complained to the defendant that some of his men had stolen a putty knife and other property belonging to him. The defendant recompensed Tillinghast for the property and testified that he was told by one of his men that the plaintiff had admitted to him that he took the putty knife. The men were paid off by the defendant at his shop on Saturday night,—their time being made up to Wednesday. Their pay was handed to them in envelopes. When a man was discharged his envelope contained his pay up to Saturday night. The plaintiff’s envelope contained his pay in full, less what the defendant had paid Tillinghast for the property, with a bill for it. There were four or five men in the shop waiting to be paid off when it came the plaintiff’s turn to be paid. The plaintiff opened his envelope and counted the money and found the bill. The plaintiff asked the defendant what that meant, and the defendant said in response, “Do you want to know in front of all these men?” and he said “Yes,” whereupon the defendant said, “That is the stuff you stole from the Tillinghast job.” Morton, J., said: “Whether a communication is or is not privileged does not depend so much on the manner or form in which crime is imputed, where the alleged slander consists as here of a charge of crime, as on the occasion and circumstances under which the charge is made. If made in good faith in reference to a matter in which the person making it is immediately interested, and for the purpose of protecting his interest and in the belief that it is true and without any malicious motive, the communication is what is termed privileged; that is, the occasion and the circumstances under which it is made are held to be such as, if nothing more appears, to excuse or justify the statements that are made.”
See Madill v. Currie, 168 Mich. 546.
Compare Adam v. Ward, [1917] A. C. 309 (statement given to the press by the army board in reply to a speech in Parliament regarding an army officer).
[496]. The statement of the case is abridged; the arguments of counsel and the concurring opinions of Lord Coleridge, C. J., and Denman, J., are omitted.
[497]. Robinson v. Jones, L. R. 4 Ir. 391 Accord.
[498]. Robinson v. Jones, L. R. 4 Ir. 391 Accord. See also Smith v. Crocker, 5 T. L. R. 441; Muetze v. Tuteur, 77 Wis. 236.
Statement in presence of third persons not interested. Fowlie v. Cruse, 52 Mont. 222; Fields v. Bynum, 156 N. C. 413.
Notice of discharge of employee posted on the premises. Ramsdell v. Pennsylvania Co., 79 N. J. Law, 379.