New-York tribune., 1876-01-17
FMpIOYERS' LIABILITIES.

EMILO1 EhS LlADlLllibp'
POINTS ESTABLISHED by THE LIBEL SUIT OF De
HART AGAINST HATCH-RIGHTs OF CoRPoRA-
TONS AND PERSONS CONCERNING UNFAITHFUL
EMPIoYEs-MARINE COURT JURISDICTION.
The libel suit of William c. De Hart against
Rufus Hatch for $4,000 which has been before the
public at various times during the past 1s months be-
sdesehowng the unconstitutionalty Of an important
legislative act s Of interest TO all corporations or per
sons who ever have occasion to discharge employees III
February, 1874, the steamship Colon OF INC -"
cnc Company's line arrived at this port win
Capt Hudson, now Assistant Superintendent Oh .ne
Company, ss commanding officer, and william T. De
Hart as mate Capt. Hudson reported 10 Mr. haoh,
Managing Director Of the Company, that DE Har' nad
been lax In his duty and had been intoxicated MI
Hatch then told Mr. DE Hart that he might resgn ihi'
he declined TO do. and MI Hatch consulted Win 'ne vi
rectors about the matter r. G.. Rolston President OF
the Farmers Loan and Trust Company who had recon-
mended De Hart to the Pacific Mail Company, ana
through whose influence he had been made first mate
of the Colon called st tho Ollie, ana
requested that his friend De Hart be made commanding
officer OF the Henry Chauncey The conversation that
followed was the basis Of the action for libel Mr. liach
said 81 think that is the man am about to discharge
for drunkenness" THAT'S impossible" replied Mr.
Roston Mr. Hatch turned to the secretary OF the Com
pany Theodore T. Johnson and asked the name OF the
man who had been reported for drunkenness Tho Sec
the Colon and remarked 10 Mr.. ROlstOn that
there were charges file against him which.
il he knew, he would not ask for Mr.. De Iarts
promotion In few davs De Hart wrote letter to the
Company asking for committee 10 investigate his case,
and denying the charges. He then employed o. T. Bnc,
as counsel. who in company with Mr.. Roston, called
upon Mr Hatch and Russell Sage, then President o the
tiop Both promised to do what they could in the matter,
but added that il unusual to grant an investigation
in cases where the commanding ofieer had hgd smcn
oh "A
taken before The Board OF Directors ana an hNestg-
tfcate be given Mr. De Hart setting forth that lie had
been discharged for incOmpetency and not TOT dIukeh-
ness, ana the request was granted.
AS soon as the certificate received Mr.. Buel. as
attorney for Mr.. De Hart, begau an acton against Mf
character of his client by telling Mr. Roson that he had
been intoxicated. Mr. Iatchs counsel prepared an an
swer TO tile complaint ana made plea of privilege set
ting forth that tie language used modified form,
without publicity or malice, ana IN conhGchudl con
yersatiOn with friend Of Mr. DE Hart Mr. johnson re-
fused to testify in tho on the ground that he Was
called upon TO give conversation which took place be
was Secretary. At the September term nc was
sustained in his objection, Mr. DE Lars corn G
eral Term sustained Mr.. johnson. The prosecution
moved that the cause he transferred 10 the Marine
Court Mr. Hach's counsel resisted this on the ground
that the statute under which i sought have the
transfer made was unconstitutional, ana asked tl'
Supreme Court 10 maintain control Of the case The re-
quest was disregarded and the transferred 10
the Marine Court, Mr.. DE IIarts counsel making an
effort To bring II 10 trial OF once. The defense appealed
10 the General Term and thence TO the Court ~ Appeals
The latter court decided in January, 1870 that the
statute was unconstitutional and that IN all of the scy
eral thousand which had been transferred under Il,
the Marine Court had no jurisdiction.
Mr. De Hart then compelled TO 80 before the Su-
premc Court The trial began last Monday before Judge
Lawrence, and continued Tor portion Of three days
After the plaintiff had proven all tie allegations OF Tue
complaint which the widest latitude WAS given,
Judge Lawrence dismissed the action on the
following grounds: First that the occasion on which
the language was used was privileged one,
and the circumstances rcbuttcd the presumption Of
malice second. that the question Of malice
was for the court and for the jury 10 decide third
that 70 impose damages Mr. Hatch for the OF Ian
guage under these circumstances would he precedent
which would imperl the rights 0f corporations and all
persons who employ labor to ans extent IN their business
or in their households fourth that tie evidence far
from showing bad faith the part OF Mr. Hatch,
evinced the utmost leniencv toward Mr. De Hart by pre-
venting from becoming public and that to
have retained Mr. DE Hart unicr such circumstances
would ha We involved grave violation OF Mr. HItch's
duty TO the travelling public AID to the Pacific Mail
Steamship Company.