Parker v. Roddy

Hamilton Circuit Court

Parker v. Roddy

14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 288, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 206

DecidedJuly 29, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 288 (Parker v. Roddy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Roddy, 14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 288, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 206 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The action below was one for damages by defendant in error against plaintiff in error. The petition contained two causes of action namely — slander and false imprisonment.

The evidence disclosed that several articles had been stolen from the Parker residence. Shortly thereafter a detective of the city police department called upon Mrs. Parker and it was to him that she first divulged her suspicion that Miss Roddy was the guilty party. '

Later interviews with police officers followed in the presence of Miss Roddy and at the trial of the case below the detectives and Miss Roddy were permitted to testify as to accusations made by Mrs. Parker on those occasions. . We think these communications were privileged and that it was error to admit them. Liles v. Gaster, 42 O. S., 631, 635, 636; Cooley on Torts, 211; 1 Cooley on Torts, 3d Ed., 434, 436; Garn v. Lockard, 108 Mich., 196.

Reversed.

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

The action below was one for damages by defendant in error against plaintiff in error. The petition contained two causes of action namely — slander and false imprisonment.

The evidence disclosed that several articles had been stolen from the Parker residence. Shortly thereafter a detective of the city police department called upon Mrs. Parker and it was to him that she first divulged her suspicion that Miss Roddy was the guilty party. '

Later interviews with police officers followed in the presence of Miss Roddy and at the trial of the case below the detectives and Miss Roddy were permitted to testify as to accusations made by Mrs. Parker on those occasions. . We think these communications were privileged and that it was error to admit them. Liles v. Gaster, 42 O. S., 631, 635, 636; Cooley on Torts, 211; 1 Cooley on Torts, 3d Ed., 434, 436; Garn v. Lockard, 108 Mich., 196.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 288, 1911 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-roddy-ohcircthamilton-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack