Fitzgerald v. Redfield
New York Supreme Court
APPEAR from a judgment entered upon the report of a ■referee. The action was for slanderous words uttered by the defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff, charging him with want of skill and capacity in his trade or occupation of a mason.
Read the full summary
APPEAR from a judgment entered upon the report of a ■referee. The action was for slanderous words uttered by the defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff, charging him with want of skill and capacity in his trade or occupation of a mason. The defendant, in his answer, denied the allegations of the complaint; and for a further and second defense averred, that at the times of the alleged speaking of the words charged in the complaint, and for some time previous thereto, the plaintiff was and had been a practical stone and brick mason, carrying on and doing business at the village of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, James C. Smith, J.
The plaintiff is a mason by trade and occupation, and carries on his trade as a means of livelihood. The defendant, at various times, uttered words charging the plaintiff with gross want of skill, knowledge and capacity in his craft, and, among other things, said of him, “that he was no mechanic; that he could not make a good wall, or do a good job of plastering; that he was no workman; and that he was a botch.”
The only question is whether the words proved, having been publicly spoken of and concerning the plaintiff, and of his trade, are actionable per se. It…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Legg v. DunleavySupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Bray v. CallihanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Moore v. FrancisNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Trimmer v. HiscockNew York Supreme Court · 1882