McLean v. Altringer

MARKS, J.

Respondent recovered judgment against appellant in the sum of $1,000 damages in an action for slander.

It appears from the record that respondent rented a furnished house from appellant and after occupying it for

[364]

several months moved therefrom on or about October 24, 1927; that the parties hereto proceeded to check over a list of the personal property leased by appellant to respondent in order to determine the articles damaged or missing; that several persons other than the interested parties were ■present on this occasion; that appellant falsely accused respondent of stealing a whole set of blue bird dishes and a chair that formerly belonged to the mother of the appellant; that appellant did not own a set of blue bird dishes and that there were no such dishes in the house leased by her to respondent.

The trial court in its findings resolved all issues in favor of respondent. The pertinent parts of the findings are as follows:

“That it is not true that said parties were brought there for the purposes of being witnesses in anything that was said or done in connection therewith; and that it is not true that any and all statements made by the defendant were made directly to the plaintiff and in the presence of no other persons except the persons invited to the premises by the plaintiff; and that it is not true that all statements were made without malice.

“The' Court specifically finds that there were people present at the time that the defendant accused the plaintiff of stealing her personal property who were not invited to be present by the plaintiff;

“And the Court further finds that the statements of the defendant to the plaintiff and concerning the alleged stealing of said personal property were made with malice and with intent to injure the plaintiff.”

The court further found that such accusations were false.

Appellant presents several grounds upon which she urges a reversal of the judgment. First, that the accusation of the theft was made in good faith and was privileged under the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 47 of the Civil Code; second, that the finding of the trial court that appellant-made the accusation of the theft of personal property with malice is not supported by the evidence; third, that respondent invited the defamatory words, and that the witnesses hearing them were present at her request for the purpose of laying a foundation for this action; and, fourth,