Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1899-07-19
VICTIM OF INGRATITUDE
Mr.. Rouss' Appeal Suit Brought
by Man He had Befriended.

hr. Charles Broadway Rouss has
appealed from a decision of the Su-
preme Court of New York which
awarded A. p. Payne, a young Vir-
gilman, the sum of five thousand dol
lars damages for alleged defamation
OF character. In order that Mr..
Rouss may appear in the correct light
before HE friends, whose opinions he
values beyond measure, the Winches-
ter Star publishes the following let
ter from one of Mr. Rouss' most con-
fidential friends, who writes the facts
in the case:
Editor Evening Star. Winchester,
Va:
Dear Sir; The article which ap-
peared in your issue of the 5th inst,
abiding to = verdict of $1,000 dam
ages obtained by one Payne against
Charles Broadway Rouss, needs, in
the interest of justice, some explana-
ton, at least to his valued friends.
The facts are these:
In the month of February, 1898,
Mr.. Rouss placed Payne, then an
employee of his, in charge of a store
and stock of goods At Pittston, Pa,
amounting to $3.50, which was in
creased 1880 in addition during his
management of four months. At
that time, June 9Th, through the
suggestion of Payne, who wished to
surrender the business to accept what
he considered a better position in
New York City, the business was
turned over to one Wright, clerk of
Payne, whom he recommended as
worthy in every respect of the great
confidence. Owing to the short time
Payne was in business, and believing
be was dealing fairly, unfortunately
1t was considered unnecessary to take
an inventory, and the transfer was
made to Wright without this being
done. Wright remained manager
until September following, few DAYS
over three months, when a new ar
rangement was made with another
party. The inventory then taken
showed loss of $4,000 to Mr.. Rouss.
While it is true that owing to the
failure to take an inventory when the
stock was transferred to Wright, it
was impossible to fix lutely which
OF the two was responsible for the
startling deficit, yet it was scarcely
possible that it could have legimately
occurred within the short time
Wright had possession, and it was
therefore considered not unreasonable
to hold both responsible morally, if
not legally, for the shortage Espec-
tally was Payne estopped from OBJ
Jecting to this view, as by his high
recommendation of Wright, he could
not accuse him of dishonest appro-
priation, without which the dim
quency could not have been altogeth-
er his. One would suppose that for
the great and coveted opportunity
which Mr.. Rouss gave Payne to make
success in life, he would, as a matter
of gratitude, have felt the force of
these facts, but, to the contrary, he
was Indifferent to them and threw
himself on his legal rights, growing
out of the inability to fix the actual
blame because of the failure to take
the inventory as explained. In the
course Of the interviews and CORE
spondence which occurred under
such circumstances, unpleasant words
would naturally be uttered, and the
letter upon which the verdict was
sbtaiHsd, and which was written (by
ere Of the clsrks) because of infor-
nation furnished by one who profess
Cd to know of what he was saving,
was enc of the outcomes. If it had
been addressed to the Press there
might have been some ground for
complaint by Payne, but it was writ
rem A. . private letter to his brother
in-law, who had recommended him
for the position at Pittson, and who
therefore, it was thought, might take
. reasonable interest in the matter.
OF course no one knowing all of
the facts expected any such results,
and the verdict has simply astonished
everybody familiar with the matters,
as in the first trial of the
case the Judge dismissed the COM
plant.