Economopoulos v. A. G. Pollard Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Economopoulos v. A. G. Pollard Co.

105 N.E. 896, 218 Mass. 294, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1394

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 17, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 105 N.E. 896 (Economopoulos v. A. G. Pollard Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Economopoulos v. A. G. Pollard Co., 105 N.E. 896, 218 Mass. 294, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1394 (Mass. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Loring, J.

We do not find it necessary to decide whether the two statements relied on by the plaintiff could have been found to be accusations of larceny. If it be assumed that such a finding could have been made, the judge was right in directing the jury to find a verdict for the defendant because there was no evidence of publication of either of them. See Downs v. Hawley, 112 Mass. 237; Rumney v. Worthley, 186 Mass. 144. There was no evidence that anybody but the plaintiff was present when Carrier spoke to the plaintiff in English. There was no publication of this statement made in English, because on the evidence the words could not have been heard by any one but the plaintiff. Sheffill v. Van Deusen, 13 Gray, 304.

[297]*297Nor was there any evidence of publication of the Greek words spoken by Míralos. For, although there was evidence that they were spoken in the presence of others, there was no evidence that any one could understand them but the plaintiff. Sheffill v. Van Deusen, ubi supra, at page 305, and cases cited.

Under these circumstances we do not have to consider the question whether Carrier and Míralos could have been found to be acting within the scope of their employment by the defendant in making the two statements relied upon, as to which see Kane v. Boston Mutual Life Ins. Co. 200 Mass. 265, 269.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Loring, J.

We do not find it necessary to decide whether the two statements relied on by the plaintiff could have been found to be accusations of larceny. If it be assumed that such a finding could have been made, the judge was right in directing the jury to find a verdict for the defendant because there was no evidence of publication of either of them. See Downs v. Hawley, 112 Mass. 237; Rumney v. Worthley, 186 Mass. 144. There was no evidence that anybody but the plaintiff was present when Carrier spoke to the plaintiff in English. There was no publication of this statement made in English, because on the evidence the words could not have been heard by any one but the plaintiff. Sheffill v. Van Deusen, 13 Gray, 304.

[297]*297Nor was there any evidence of publication of the Greek words spoken by Míralos. For, although there was evidence that they were spoken in the presence of others, there was no evidence that any one could understand them but the plaintiff. Sheffill v. Van Deusen, ubi supra, at page 305, and cases cited.

Under these circumstances we do not have to consider the question whether Carrier and Míralos could have been found to be acting within the scope of their employment by the defendant in making the two statements relied upon, as to which see Kane v. Boston Mutual Life Ins. Co. 200 Mass. 265, 269.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 N.E. 896, 218 Mass. 294, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/economopoulos-v-a-g-pollard-co-mass-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack