Court Of Common Pleas, Gu...
(Beforc Lord Cltief Jirstie BEsT. aitd a Sne.c./Ial .Tnir,, } I nis was an action brought by Elizabeth Wyatt, to recover da. anges for injury sustained in having been kept out ef a situation, as ladv's maid, in consequence of the bad character given to her by rs. Mocks, the wife of the defendant, in whose sezvice she had foreserly lived. The defence set up was, that the character given was that which Mmrs. Cocks believed to be the true one, and that even if she were mistaken in that respect, there was not that mnalice in the transac- tion which would be necessary to maintain the action. Air. STrErPN-opweed the pleadings, and Mr. Sergeant WVILDE stated the case to the jury. From this sEatent iLt appeared, that Mrs. Cocks was the wife of a gentle- man of great respectability living in Harley-street, M1arylebone. The plAintiff had lived tws years and a half in ber service. Yhen she left it, she sent a lady to whom she had ipplied for an en- gargement as lady's-maid, to inquire as to her character. Mrs. C6ks, after stating that she was "sober andhonest," described her as being generally unsteady in her conduct. Upon such a represen. tation tYie lady naturally refused to take her, and forthe injury done to hr character by that misrepresentation, and for the consequent loss of plce for a time, the present aution was brought. It would a*- tpzar in evidence, that Alts. Cocks afterwards endeavoured to justiSy her repreSentations, by alleging that the plaintiff had gone out one xmnrurng into the Park as early an five o'clock, and had not expladn. <t her conduct in thatrespect. Thatmnight-be true, but it would be proved that plaintifflived in the defendan's service for 12 months after this alleged mrisconduct, and no other imputation had ever been made against her. It would be for the jury to say bowfar a lady of MIrs. Cocks's ralk, whose word could not- be lisputed, should b al. towed with impunity to make a statement without a proper founda- tion, which rwas to have the effect of depriving a poor servant of a good character, and of course of her subsistence which depended utpon it. The learned Sergeant then called the following witnesees A7rs. Burnett was the first witness called. She was accoinnio. dated with 5 seat in the bench. She stated that she was thhe wife of uAr. Charles Bumett, of Ealing-park. Some time ago a rituation tit tay's maid was vacant in her household establinament. The 3aIntiffapplied for it, and referred her to Mrs. Cocks, with whoml ah;e etated that ehc had lived tvuo years and a half. She afterwards ;waited on Airs. Cocks, and inquited as to plaintiff's honesty, so. briety, and general ftness for the situation. Mrs. Cocks replied tla shc was perfectly sober and honest, bttt that there V as a general unsteadiness In her conduct. Airs. Burnett then asked whether laintiff'was agood dress-maker? Ars. Cocks replied, that she had been oriinally a nursery-maid in her famrily, but that shc was af. terwards removed to Ihe situation of lady's maid, on ac60unt of her rt of steadinesa in attending the children. In consequence of tIff information, and having daughters growing up, Airs. Burnett mid ehe could not take any young woman with that character Into etr- er -ica To this irs. Cocks made no answer; and she there. fore refused to take the plaintiEf O(k her cross-examination, Mlrs. Burnett said Mirs. Cacks told her thaishe h3d put plaintiff about her own person in cotnsequence of br want ofsteadiness. She added, that the change had been recom. snended by the medical attendant of the lamilv (Sir William Knigh- tan). Her -ent of stcadiness in the care of Ehildren was also urged bly Mrs. Vocks as the cause of her removal. - iIr. W. K. 3enkins stated, that he was a teacler of dancing. He ha1d a communication with Alrs. Cocks (who had once been a pupil of rias) on the subject ef the plaintiff. This took plaee on the 7th of January lae. HeX tried to bring thle matter to some accomninoda. tioD. He askced Arts. Cocka whether she said that she wotuld turn Bciay WVyatt bact::k to her former wretched hovel in thei oDintry, and tat she would prevent bet gettmng into any sltuation-'4n London ? She replied that she had used some hasty expression hb4ot' a hovel. .itness afterwa3rds asked her whether she could - intetid to deyrive the por girl Sf a situation by refusing her a chaeacter ? Alrg. C ocks then told him the circumstance which madeherdescribe the plain. tii rs laeing unsteady i her conduct She said, "' How coald I sgive hrx a character for steadiness, when se. left nmy huse at five o'cdockt In the morning to go I don't know where?" She added, "I .,anuld not have discovere her absence at that hosir, but that I was -il end batl niig her bep." M1ss. Cocls did not say how long this b_efre the girl gave her notice to quiL Witness told A;lrs. that ifa servant of bis acted in suclla mainer lie would have dis,cnissed her immediately. 'AMrs. Cocks said, that she hatl not re. .---'i,at to give the girl a character, but she Lould not describe her as a ;j riy girl after such conduct. CG2 eistinc.ned.-After this, witness saw the plaintiff; told her cm,aS DIrs. fCock. had said, and nsked her bow she could have de. cziu :l lrs. Jenkins _y~ not Etating that she was out at 6uch an hour inthe morning? ,Sbe began to cry, andt expressed her regret at the ciratanstrsee. *W tne,sasked her wehether she would have any obh - :eeito na2ke ann apology to Airs. Cock? ? She replied that she was xv?lingto da eo, but. heA! told her not to do any thing without consuting t?he get leman whe a t as her solicitor.- Reexamingd..Plaintltf did-13ot tell'him h'ow long before sbe left Mlrs. Cocks. the circumstance of.biergolno out in the morning had occurred. The apology,waa-first ofrxred.by xvitness, and Ars. Cocks consented to receive ih. She alsa .said fibe did not want to deprive the girl of hex bread. Witnt6s's* wifc-had taken an interest in the plaintiff, and he waa angry at. her not having told him that she had been out so early in the morning. Alr8. E. Lees, the housekeeper of the defendant, stated, that she had no communication -with plaintiff by Mrs. Cor.ks'a desire. AlUs. Cocks said, thRt if the girl made an apology voluntarily she would see her; but shle did not tell witness to gay so to her. 1Vitness re. membered the time wbet plaintiff went oat go early in the rmaening. It was twelve months before she left MIrs. Cocks's service. Plaintiff heraelfgave warning. She had lived it the family two yearsantlahalf; was at first a nursery.maid, and afterwatds she was made a lady'si- mniaid. There were fbur childreni when slhe came. Soon after, one of them was taken iDl. AfMrs. Cocks was satisfiefl with her conduct on that occasion. She afterwards made her a present in cor.sequence. Crocs-examined.-Sir Vni. Knighton was the medical attend- ant et the family. Witness was not present at any complaint made by Sir Wi. Knighton against plaintiff's conduet with respect to the children. The care of the child was not intrusted to plainitiff' alone. Witness slept in the samle room, and was often attending on the child. Re.examinea.-Mrs. Cocks lived in the same house with the child. When witness advised the plaintiff to make an apology, she. knew of no specific charge against her. It was something between ber mistress an&iherself. It mustbave been whatever it was, nearly 12 montlhs after ale had been out early in tte morning. Barnet Staggs, the defendant's butler, proved that tlhe plaintiff showed him a pelisse which she had received frem her mistress, in consequrnce of her attention to the ePildren. The pelisse was a new one. He had not teen it on any pesson before. Heard his mistress say, but not to him, that the plaintiff might stay in the house if she pleased. Another witness was called wlho pToved that the pelisse was ven to the plaintifF in consequence of her attention to the de. t,endanrt's children. This was the plaintiff's case. Mltr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, for the defendant, expressed his sur- prise that he should be called upon to say cne word, after the statement wlich the jury bad heard. There was not, he contended, any, even the slightest, proof of nealice on the part of the defend. ant, in the whole transaction. This was a very different case from one of representation ot character, where tie. defentlant mutst stantI or fall by the truth of what he bad atverred. In this case the jury, before they gave a verdict for the- plaintiff, must not only bc satisded that tile statement made by the defendantt was fale, but that it was also done with malice. They woald give thie case the most mature consideration,as it involved a question of the' utmost importance with respect to the relation between master and servant. The learned sergeant then proceeded to argue, upon the question of law, that this was not an action wliich rould be main- tained. In the case of' " Rogers v. Sir I}. Clifton," it waBS proved that after the plaintiff iad been discharged from deiendant's service, the defendant went to the person withl whomii the plaintiff had for- merly lived, and told him not to give him a, character, as he was a " lazy, impertinent, and ill-tempered fellow " and that when he was applied to by another person for the plaintiif"N character, he wrote a letter to the same effect. When the action came into court, it was lieu that, as far as the writing of the-letter, no atelion coald be maintain. cd ior that it was a privilegeti communication. tlhe L,ORD CrIEV JUSTICE: sai that it was unaccessary for the learned sergeant to discuss the question of law. That was clear enough : the only point was its application to the facts given in evidence. Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN then went on to contend, that taking all the facts of the case, there was no evidence to alhow malice on the part of Mtrs. Cocks. The plaintiff's declarationi set forth, that the statement of Mrs. Cocks had conveyed an imputation of utlsteadiness with res,pect to men. That, lhowever, was a construction which the plaintiff herself, or her advisers, had put upon it, but which ilMrs. Cocks had nlever meant to convey; for it was proved that she had described the plaintiff as " sober and honest," but added that there wrason unsthadiness in her conduct, and afterwards gave as her reason that the girl had gone out at live in tihe morning, and gone into the Park. Tids was tile whole conduct of Alrs. Coclcs, and lie centended that there was not the slightest proof of malice, but slie was justifed in applying the term - unsteadin^.s" to the conduct which she had imputed to the girl. and wlhich was zIot denied or ex- plained. The learned sergeant calledl no witnesses. The LORI CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, left it to the jury to say, how far Mrs. Cocks's representation to the lady who had ap- plied to her for a character of plaintiffwas a malicious one. Let theta see what was inmpated as improper conduct. That condkuct was (for nething else had been imputed), that she had gone out at the early hour of five o'clock in the morning. The fact was undoubtelly one of a suspicious mature against the character of any young woman; but most certainly it wais one which might have been satisfactorily explained. It didi not appcar, however, that atiy explanation had been given. The jury should bear this in mind, that wbht. ever was blameable in the plaintiff's conduct had been pass- ed over at the time, and that the plaintiff had remnained in the defendant's service 12 nionths after. Perhaps it alight be said that she had been kept in the hruse for a period after the title let mistress bad found fault with her, in order to give her an oppor- tunity of amending her behaviour, (antI this it was well known was liumtsnely donc to servants by many m-asters anti n.istresses.) The I supposition that this was dlone in the present case was barred by the fact, that the plaintiff herself had given notice to leave, and Ilfat her quitting the service was quite a voluntary act of her o,vn. 'f he jary, taking the whole circunistances of the case into consideration, would sny first, whether there was malice in the defendant's conduct, (for u iless they were clearly satisfied of that, they must find agaisst the plaintiff) ; -and if they believed there was, then what reasonable com- pensatios the piaintilIt ought to receive. 'rhle Jury retired, and after an absence of nearly two hours, re- turned, bringing a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 1001. and costs. Before the rising of the Court, the UHi E F JUsTICE stated that he would not take any coiminmon Jury causes until he had disposed of all tllo5c of speCial Jiuries. CtOURT OF COlMMON PLEAS. ThTMThAT-T. ln.1 IS GIVLY-G CnARACTER TO A SERVANT.-WvYATT V. c.ruc-.