Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1899-07-11
vIctim Of Ingratitude.
Mr.. Ro,ss' appeal Suit Brought bs a Nan he
lad Befriented.

Mr. Rolfss' appeal Suit Brought b1f a Nan ne
Had BsJriended,
Mr.. Charles Broadway Rouss has APP
pealed from decision of the Supreme
Court of New York which awarded A. p.
Payne. a young vi-ginian, the sum of !
FIVE thousand dollars damages for alleged
defamation of character. In order that !
Mr.. Rouss may appear in the correct
light before his friends, whose opinions
he values beyond measure. the Winches-
ter Star publishes the following letter from
one of Mr.. Rouss most confidential
friends. who writes the facts in the case:
Editor Evening Star. Winchester. Va;
Dear Sir The article which appeared
in your issue of the 9Th inst, abiding to
a verdict of IS 600 damages obtained by
one Payne against Charles Broadway
Rouss, needs. in the interest of justice.
some explanation. at least to his valued
friends. The facts are these:
In the month of February. 1893. Mr..
Rouss placed Payne. then an employee
of his, in charge of store and stock of
goods at Pittston, Pa, amounting to
SO, $50, which was increased 81, $50 in adj
dition 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 rec
commended as worthy in every respect of
the great confidence. Owing to the short
time Payne was in business, and believ-
ing he was dealing fairly, unfortunately
it was considered unnecessary to take an
inventory, and the transfer was made to
Wright without this being done. Wright
remained manager until September fol-
loving, a few days over three months,
when new arrangement was made with
another party. The inventory then taken
showed a loss of 50. coo 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 absolutely 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 there,
fore considered not unreasonable to hold
both responsible morally, if not legally,
for the shortage. Especially was Payne
estopped from Directing to this view, as
by his high recommendation of Wright,
he could not accuse him of dishonest APP
preparation, without WHICH the delir-
quencY could not have been altogether
his. One would suppose that for ting
great and coveted opportunity which
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 upon his legal rights,
growing out of the inability to fix the
, actual blame because of failure to take
the inventory as explained. In the course
of the interviews and correspondence
which occurred under such circum.
stances, unpleasant words would natu.
rally be uttered. and the letter upon which
the verdict was obtained. and which was
J written (by one of the clerks because OF
AHIOIuldllOu 1uILlSIlGu DY one WHO pro
, fessed to know of what he was saying,
was one of the outcomes. If it had been
addressed to the Press there might have
been some ground for complaint by Payne,
but it was written as private letter to
his brother-in-law, who had recommended
him for the position at Pittstou. aud who
therefore, it was thought, might take a
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. especially as
in the first trial of the case the judge
dismissed the complaint.
An appeal has been taken and it is
believed different result will come of it
when more thorough presentation is
made. If not, it is inconceivable how a
greater wrong could be perpetrated under
the forms of law A. l. S.