The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1905-10-11

returned, IS cents was demanded
for bringing it back; q dispute
arose between Evander Stukes
the depot agent. and Fielder.
Stukes became inceused at Ian
guage used by Fielder, and he
struck Fielder in the face with a
pistol. Suit was brought for
S., 900 damages against the com
pany because Stukes was the
company's agent, and it was
claimed the trouble grew out OF
matters in connection with the
company's business. The jury
awarded Fielder 5000, and in our
opinion, it is a very dangerous
Judgment, even, if il is law. If
a depot agent in the exercise of
his duties, as such, is insulted by
a negro or white man having
business at his depot, and he re-
sents the insult by using violence
such as knocking his lnsultef
down. or striking him with a
stick or any other means OF vlo-
lent resentment, according to the
laws Interpretation by the jury
in the case referred to, the compa-
nv that employed the agent IS
liable TO be mulct in damages. 1t
this is good law. it is a very un-
fortunate. and very unreasona'
ble,-one calculated, when it be-
comes known, to put every rail-.
road company in jeopardy at all
times. A railroad agent is made
of flesh and blood; while in the
discharge of his duties he has as
much resentment in his nature as
if he were not at his employment,
and when offence is given to him,
such as calling him a liar Or ap-
plying to him some other epithet
nature will not suggest to post
pone resentment until some 9TH
er time and place: he acts, not
for employers, they were not
called liars, it was he, who was
insnlted, and it was he, who re-
sented it. Under such circuru-
stances to lodge verdict for
damages against his employees
is simply ridiculous. According
to that verdict, if it holds, a clerk
in a store is liable to have
his employer mulct in dam
ages. A man enters a store,
prices an article, the clerk and
he get into a controversy about
the quality Of the goods, the
purchaser calls the clerk a scoun-
drel, and the clerk resents the
insult by hitting the man in the
head with a stick or a weight,
that man can bring suit against
the clerks employer and recover
damages, the same reasoning
would apply to a farm, a work
shop, or any other employment.
Such law, If it is good law, was
no doubt framed by some little
lawyer member of the legislature
who had in view the mulcting Of
corporations, but in our view, not
withstanding court decisions lndts
favor, the law never contemplated
Just such case as the one tried
in our court. We do not believe
the law ever means to make COW
ards Of employees nor do we be-
lieve the law intends to provide
those inclined, with the means
to get money damages from the
employers of men who resent
personal insult.
A man may make himself oo-
noxious and exasperating to an
employee, whether it be a depot
agent or a clerk in a store. or a
ginner in a ginhouse, without
using an offensive word: his con-
duct may be exasperating, and
he can do this with a view, that
if the employee should use any
violence in resenting his con-
duct, he can recover money
damages from the employer.
We do not as a rule comment
on the verdict Of juries, but in
this verdict, we regard it so men-
acing to the public welfare, that
we think it proper to direct pub
lie attention to it so that in fu-
ture, when a negro or white
man brings suit for money dam
ages against an employer, be-
cause of a personal encounter
with an employee, juries will go
slow in the construction OF the
law and. evidence, and be just to
the country as well as the parties