Lee v. W. E. Fuetterer Battery & Supplies Co.

1204 judgment

II. The trial court seems to influenced, have been entirely by controlled, City not the decision of the Kansas Court Appeals in Weaver v. 220 Woodling, App. Mo. 970. It was ruled

in that case that original where an summons is returne(j i!not found” plaintiff and the fails there after to sue out .successive writs from term to term, discontinuance by operation the ease results of law, judgment and a rendered subsequently service had void. is At common law a discontinu ance interruption proceedings “the chasm or occasioned plaintiff the failure of the regularly to continue the suit from time time, ought.” as he Law Dictionary, Title: [Bouvier’s Discon tinuance, citing 3 Bla. A Com. technical is 296.] discontinuance practice. unknown to our A civil action under our Code is not com menced suing out and writ, service of a filing but of a petition suing “and process out of therein.” After is so suit commenced it is automatically continued from term to term by finally statute until disposed some judgment order or 2354, court. R. S. Consequently entry [Sec. no formal 1919.] continuance necessary keep us, case court. With and in practice modern generally, term “discontinuance” is used as indicating merely plaintiff has taken a nonsuit, there has been dismissal. James, 236; v. 48 235, Mo. Ferber [Thurman 7 Brueckl, (2d) 279; English v. Dickey, 182; S. W. v. 128 175, Ind. Germania Fire Ins. 52 Francis, 457, Co. v. Miss. 467; Parsons v. Hill, (D. C.) 15 App. 532; 9 Cas. L. 2, pp. R. C. sec. The 191-2.] ruling in Weaver v. supra, Woodling, disapproved in Ferber v. 17 Brueckl, (2d) Mo. S. W. 524. judgment of the trial court reversed and the cause remanded judgment adjudging directions that court to enter simple

defendant has the in fee title real estate described in plaintiff’s petition plaintiff right, and that has no title or interest All therein. concur. Supplies W. E. Appellant, v. Henry William Company, E. Estelle Greene and Spencer. (2d) H. 23 S. W. 45. One,

Division October 1929. John P. John V. O. Leahy, Lee and William Galeivood appel- lant. respondents. Gilbert c6 for

Anderson, Wolfort lawyer, a SEDDON, libel, plaintiff, for C. Action instituted a Company, Supplies the W. E.- Fuetterer individuals, Missouri William E. corporation, and three plaintiff defendants, wherein Henry Spencer, Estelle Green and IT. as $50,000 damages and recovery $100,000 compensatory seeks the as employed damages. as defendant, Greene, was punitive as Estelle The during years bookkeeper by corporate a defendant who, Henry lawyer Spencer, IT. defendant, and the A appears corporate defendant. trial times, represented to have verdict jury in the return a unanimous of the action to resulted for unsuccessful motions After in favor of- all of defendants. an allowed judgment, plaintiff was a new trial in arrest of upon the judgment entered appeal adverse to this court from the verdict. petition charges, substance, the several defendants wrongfully wantonly combined

maliciously, willfully, unlawfully, injuring together and intent of purpose and confederated with the practice of his plaintiff good fame, name and his making false, unfounded, untrue and malicious state- profession, plaintiff, by writing, or concerning writing, ments in 12, 1924, February a certain causing written, to be on or about Grievance addressed, directed, mailed and delivered to the letter Association, in which letter St. Louis Bar Committee following false, concerning plaintiff the defendants stated of been matter, “I have to-wit: and libelous unfounded, untrue . . Frank Lee lawyer Louis. . Mr. in St. double-crossed friendship. He said me, professing the closest firm called to see of that going to' company’s case if was he would not handle the said look my attorney would out He said he was contest it. , my him, my whole hand Relying upon . disclosed interests. of breach of including damages on account my claim for him, relationship me disregarded his . Mr. has contract. Lee deliberately has attorney. I claim that Lee my ... assuring me other, after my from side of the case switched the confidential attorney, that he used my would remain that he harder; . my . . much gave I him to case information which make unfriendly my anything do attorney and would not my he was part his interests; on that it was after this assurance I my disclosed secrets to him.” generally the jointly, denying

The several answered defendants allegations petition. During progress trial, E. William corporate defendant, and the individual defendant answer, permitted over Fuetterer, were to file an amended objection answer of the exception plaintiff. The amended or about defendants, on two defendants aforesaid avers these addressed, written, February to be 12, 1924, wrote and caused St. Louis directed and delivered Committee of the Grievance in the which set out verbatim Bar Association a certain letter, answer, appear which will hereafter amended letter opinion. avers that the statements The amended answer further true, Mr. Lee every and “that in said letter are each and one name Frank who these stated that his called defendants defendant, W. E. Lee; that Mr. Lee who called said to whom defend- Supplies Company, only was the Lee Battery gave information Fuetterer, the confidential about W. E. ant, Company; there- Storage Battery the Cincinnati claim William E. Fuetterer was called said Grievance after defendant before present Messrs. Association there were two Committee of Bar said Lee; had been pointed out the Lee who claimed that said defendant John Y. and was informed it place business, out to his Committee Lee; communication to the Grievance not in their was written Association these defendants of said Bar interests, for the moral duties and civil and private, public, social, letter, privileged communication.” in said and is purposes set out general denial. answer is reply The said amended William defendant, herein is that the uncontroverted evidence letter, dated and mailed a certain E. caused to be written Committee, February and directed to “Grievance addressed George Association, Hitchcock, care of Mr. C. Federal Bar St. Louis follows: letter reads as Building, Louis,” Bank St. which Reserve I want lawyer “I in St. Louis and double-crossed have been anything for me. see if can do facts to to state the &.Associates, Inter- many years 0. firm of W. Gatewood . “For handling me, legal business for been Building, Life national firm acquainted Mr. Lee of that rather well I have become matters. my attorney commercial personal considered and have Cincinnati dispute with the had a “Last fall St. represented Ohio, whom have Company Cincinnati, years. in vicinity agent dispute This some Louis and as sales my ter selling dealers company to other Cincinnati volved the causing me, me written contract with- ritory, contrary to their 1210 Cin I owed $8,000; the time neighborhood damage which, of account, $1,223.97 on Battery Company Storage cinnati on the they me gave satisfaction pajr I them until refused to

course, other matter. regular collection company put this

“The Cincinnati account & Lee. Gatewood came, thereby, into the hands channels and it friendship. me, professing firm the closest to see Lee of that called if I company’s would case was He not said said he handle the attorney and would going my to contest it. He said that my look for out interests. including my

“Relying him, I whole hand upon him, disclosed my damages My de- of contract. claim for on account breach sire, get Battery Company course, Storage was to the Cincinnati Louis, me on them sue this St. could have account so against them, be court to answer claim would neces- my otherwise it sary my go there, for witnesses Cincinnati, me to file take suit large is expense there and be under which it additional items unnecessary to enumerate. disregarded attorney my

“Mr. Lee me relationship has his as against account, filed has suit me on but not name of this alleges Storage Cincinnati Battery Company. Instead, he an assignment of the account to certain Frieke, Vourdon of whom I have never heard.

“My lawyer that, although my me I may informs use for claim damages as a defense suit, this unknown Frieke’s it still impossible large to recover $1, balance over and above claim, 223.95 which I the Cincinnati Company is not in I all, may precluded court at and that from suing company my I use claim damages as a defense in this suit. “I claim that deliberately Mr. Lee has my switched from side of case the other assuring after my me that he would remain

attorney, and that he gave used the confidential I information which him to my make case through assignment. much pretended harder “I have been attorneys advised that it useless to make this complaint, I since will anything it, never hear I more of but don’t believe will treat me in this manner and I believe that will allow me a chance hearing for a and the chance to confront this man. “I have my several witnesses to conversation with him, and to his assurance that he my attorney anything and would not do unfriendly my interests, who knows that was after this assurance part his my disclosed secrets to him. very

“Yours truly, E “W. .Fuetterer, ‘ ‘ “ ’ ’ WEF :B. President. Co. turned Wagoner Tire ago the years “P. S.—About three me came Mr. Lee Gatewood for collection over claim to represent not he could my he told us story, told him side turned He my attorney. Wagoner he was Company, Wagoner Tire down.” case of the Co. E. Fuetterer stationery W. of upon the

The letter was written Supplies Company. composed of Bar Association membership The of St. Louis the profession lawyers practice their a who considerable number of carries and functions city Bar Association the of Louis. The St. said through number of com- objectives on purposes its and and commonly re- among Grievances, which is a Committee on mittees, con- Committee The Grievance ferred Grievance Committee. to as the Association, and Louis Bar St. sists of six individual members of the foregoing letter attorney. time the employs a the secretary and At lawyer and Wescoat, F. delivered, written and Mr. Clarence secretary and Association, was the Bar a member of the St. Louis Bar Associa- of the St. Louis attorney Committee for the Grievance tion. Committee are authority Grievance of the powers, duties and by-

prescribed of constitution and set forth in article nine the Association, of as follows: laws the St. Bar Louis against member any complaint preferred “Whenever shall be Association, to this misconduct in his relation of the Association for preferring complaint person such profession, persons or in his or writing, sub- Grievances, in present shall to the Committee on it of, complained stating the matter by him, them, plainly scribed particulars place and circumstances. time, of complaint, and, thereupon examine “The Committee shall alleged are of therein they opinion that the matters are together complaint, copy importance, cause a of sufficient shall when place days, of time than five with a notice of not less thereof, be served on will consideration Committee meet for same of, by leaving the complained personally, or the member either properly place during hours, his office addressed at of business time appointed, or such other place him. at At time com- Committee, member may designated by the place as or defense. plained may file a written answer and determine thereupon proceed to hear shall “The Committee the evidence and, if it finds under complaint, the matter sus- adjudge member be complaint true, may that such it may Association, Committee pended expelled and the from the judg- that, Committee, writing, in its report also to the Executive ment, courts. require prosecution in the At is such case as to hearing present least four members of must be the Committee adjudication or recom- complaint, and concur such appealed from, final unless mendation, decision shall be and such provided. hereinafter al- complained of shall be member complainant and the "The be members counsel, who must appear person lowed to of their truth vouch for the The witnesses shall the Association. Committee shall have of honor. The on their word statements may Association, witnesses, and, if members power to summon may misconduct. appear be treated as neglect or refuse to may expelled Association from suspended or "Any member so Executive Com- from decision of the Committee appeal days of notice twenty from date of service within mittee appeal, Committee; such provided, on such such acts copy com- Committee a members shall the Executive file with plaint together transcript pre- with a the evidence him, before the sented Grievance Committee. The Executive Committee things proceed complaint before, shall to review the and also adjudication or recommendation of, Grievances, the Committee may any adjudication affirm, modify such or reverse or recommenda- by The tion. action thus taken the Executive Committee shall be final. expulsion member, final adjudging any

"The action of or recom- prosecution reported mending courts, in the shall be to the Associa- meeting tion at next thereof and entered its records. specific charges gross unprofessional "Whenever of fraud or con- preferred against duct shall be a member of the Bar not a member of Association, person pretending attorney or to be an or law, practicing city counselor at in the Louis, of St. or whenever complaint preferred concerning shall be person other touch- ing justice, the administration of the Committee on Grievances shall investigate same, and, approval with of the Executive Com- mittee, may shall take such action thereon proper prem- as in the ises.” The antecedent and leading up facts writing .circumstances delivery of the aforesaid letter are by thus disclosed the evi- Plaintiff dence: born city educated in the Louis, of St. - and was June, admitted to the bar in 1922, age at the twenty of twenty-eight

seven or years. employed He was by a firm lawyers of engaged practice in the of law under the firm of name W. 0. Gate- &wood Associates. The firm appears to composed been W. of 0. Lee, Gatewood and V. John latter of whom is a of brother plaintiff. firm engaged had previously practice in of law under the name Lee, of Gatewood & seemingly specialized in the collection of commercial for accounts clients, various and em- ployed lawyers clerks, several or including plaintiff and another brother of plaintiff, Bernard Lee, and also one Yourdon Fricke. that, during the effect to the on behalf of defendants The evidence Company Supplies Battery & years 1924, 1920 to the Fuetterer Associates.” dealings Gatewood & É. with William Fuetterer “had firm to the entrusted corporate defendant During period, such accounts, of or seven commercial & some six Gatewood Associates collected were accounts small for Some those amounts, collection. suits instances suit, fewa & Associates without but Gatewood cor- for attorneys Associates, & were instituted Gatewood accounts. porate certain defendant, to enforce the collection months appears that, It latter from the evidence Battery Company of early part Cincinnati collection, an Associates, Cincinnati, & for Ohio, sent Gatewood Supplies Battery & owing by, from, the Fuetterer account and due exact to the Company. evidence as sharp There conflict account presented such time and date when Gatewood & Associates payment, for Supplies Company the Fuetterer & particular Associates representative what of Gatewood individual payment. for presented Company the account was ac- Plaintiff, charge claims testified that had & Associates counts that were to the firm of Gatewood sent claim” clients,” he, “out-of-town “handled the himself, and that Com- Storage Battery Company against the Fuetterer Cincinnati defendant, pany, personally William presented the account part November, 1923. Fuetterer,' E. for payment latter personally acquainted Plaintiff testified that he was well and further Fuetterer; known Fuetterer two defendant had receiving ac- years, frequently prior three and had met Storage Battery having pre- count of Company, the Cincinnati viously Com- attended to small for the Fuetterer several collections pany; plaintiff as Frank that defendant Fuetterer well knew Frank. plaintiff by name, and addressed Christian usually his plaintiff Fuet- respecting As between interview and defendant Storage terer, in Cincinnati the matter of the account or claim the plaintiff Battery corporate defendant, Company against testi- fied as follows: immediately

“I received the claim on November and telephoned adjustment; Mr. and I had it for told him that I see it. He like to have him down to me about that would come sug- busy day, and I pretty me was come down that told he to gested day, then, he he couldn’t make either. next and said it it, he lot of papers He said wanted to show me a connection with know I come out to see him. I told him I wanted to could following day, then, possibly day, could not make or the day Wednesday, I at his on request, at his called office second following, eve, November, Thanksgiving 1923. appoint- made an We office, o’clock, his three Wednesday following, at for the ment Street. When 2123 Locust president, which business of he appoint- of our the afternoon o’clock on I his three to office at came him, I saw room, and, before ment, sitting in he the rear his I back to ‘Hello, Frank; back.’ walked come hollered, he just a minute.’ you ‘I with got said, back, When I he will desk. girl (stenographer), girl

I sat dismissed down me said, came to see typewriter ‘You desk. He went over to her all said, ‘I turned said, ‘Yes.’ He I about that Cincinnati matter?’ ’? you know him Spencer. my attorney, Do papers over to Mr. those know him may by sight, I I I him but don’t said, ‘No. know my began I to We . . . With hat and leave. name.’ took door, and, walked railing, walked as we both towards the outside the door, from the desk the conversation continued. He told to Battery Storage Company me owed more the Cincinnati money ‘Yes; said, than he owed I He said, them. ‘Is that so?’ understand, said, but I you bring suit, Frank.’ want He ‘They are no good, get your fee, about be sure be sure that.’ said, I ‘I will take ... I I care of that.’ told him would com- Storage Company municate Battery Cincinnati and have correspondence determining them send me their file before whether I bring right; not would suit. He I said, understand, ‘Get me you bring fee;’ want suit, your but remember about and with that we were I office, door his left. The whole time inwas his office conversation have related consumed less than five time, during docupient minutes single time not a paper was me, exhibited nor was there additional merits or demerits of Q. . . case discussed. . you Did communicate with the Storage Cincinnati Battery Company? A. I did, following Friday, Thursday being Thanksgiving, and, got when I Friday, office my Q- I wrote letter. in- And received the required you formation Q. Yes, sir, them? A. you from When got that information from Storage Battery Cincinnati Company, what did papers? do with the A. Well, I turned them over Lee, my John V. brother, placing them, having placed, them Q. on his desk. . . . filing After the of that suit part on the Storage Cincinnati Company, assignment was there an claim made the Cincinnati Battery Company? Yes, Q. A. sir. To whom was that made? A. Q. Vourdon Fricke. brought That suit was in the name of Vourdon Fricke, assignee? Yes, A Q. sir. Now, after filing of suit, you stated had a conversation with Mr. Fuetterer over telephone? A. Yes, Q. sir. State what he said over telephone. A. That was about January 17, 1924. The suit was January filed on 15, 1924, and that was two or three upme called Mr. Fuetterer filed. days tbe suit had been after you ‘I where said, see said, I ‘Yes.’ He ‘Hello, Frank.’ said, He you me.’ told said, ‘Yes, claim.’ sued me on that Cincinnati assign the account.’ say you said, going didn’t were ‘You fee, and my good they protect I and to said, ‘You told me were no Q. . . abruptly. . I With ended did it.’ the conversation A. Company suit? Storage Battery What became of Cincinnati Supplies Battery & Judgment against was the Fuetterer rendered and costs. interest full .Company for the amount of debt Q. . defend- . . you Did other conversation Mr. Fuet- ant Yes. After here, filing after A. of that suit? inquiry, ’phoned terer same ’phoned me, Spencer Mr. with the conclusion repeated had and the I told Mr. what was, case, relating in his conversation with’ get you.’ ‘We will In Mr. clos- being abruptly closed, Fuetterer Mr. Fuetterer’s that was ing remark, this;’ Spencer get you when Mr. and, ‘We will telephoned conclusion. following precisely it was same day, Q. get Q. He you? you said he would A. sir. receive a Yes, Did letter from the Committee Grievances of the Bar Association of city Louis, you Mr. St. and in that notified that letter were complaint against you with William E. Fuetterer had filed notifying you Grievance Association, Committee the Bar appear before the Grievance Bar Association on Committee Friday, Q. you March Yes, at A. sir. Did three o’oclock? so appear my accompanied by before I did, that committee? A. attorney. brother’, Lee, Q. John Y. my as place took What when went in there? there, A. Mr. Weseoat When we went in complaint announced that the matter business was the Mr. against sitting they Fuetterer Frank Lee—we all around —that were ready were having now to proceed hearing with the case, agreed to have reported done, the case transcribed, and, upon being Mr. up stepped Fuetterer said, or, rather, when Mr. Weseoat charges said against were pointed Mr. Weseoat me and replied, identified me as Frank Mr: Lee. ‘That me;’ up man who came pointing to see to John Y. Lee. It was suggested by Mr. complaint Weseoat that an amendment made, should he orally, and that was done meeting and the was then request Q. continued of Mr. say Fuetterer. You the com- plaint changed respect what Orally A. was done? —in —what changed so as to ‘John substitute Y. Lee’ place in the of ‘Frank Q. Lee.’ AYhat charge became of you? Excepting A. so far T have stated now, know. don’t I never re- ceived notification that was dropped, dismissed other than suggested what was in the room at time, just which I have re- Q. time, lated. At that complaint Lee, when changed, regretted bring- having anything yon to about say Mr. Fuetterer did all at had no conversation ¥e No, A. sir. you case? ing into the nothing at all.” then; since that time being attorney, you an course, “Q. And, Cross-examination: lien on a attorney gives an Missouri that statute there is a

know Q. Yes, sir. So you? A. fee, don’t for his collected the amount you fee, if col- you losing your danger of any was never that there A. for that? lien Fuetterer; you had a against claim lected this money be; if was us, but paid there would money was If be a would different Cincinnati, that company in paid direct to the attorney, with Q. you Missouri a But are proposition. party was sir; the other Yes, case lien? A. but this Missouri party was no State, me the other and Mr. Fuetterer told out of the Q. Q. A. so. any good? presume Mr. I You good. Was Fuetterer attorney’s lien expected and enforce the to make that collection Q. In against A. event So that Mr. Fuetterer? success. necessary assignment this make an claim was not at all to any you had in I protect Vourdon Fricke to fee the matter? A. Q. why you say, then, you Why you say know. do don’t did you assigned Mr. Mr. Vourdon told Fuetterer reason it to Fricke protect your I fee, you was to if know? A. didn’t said that was necessary. precaution I done. didn’t know it was That that was Q. which assured it. fact that Fuetterer had a counterclaim nothing had do assignment? to with A. knew of no counter- Q. you testify claim. you Didn’t Mr. Fuetterer told he had against a claim them him? No, sir; and wanted them A. sue said nothing of Q. the counterclaim, and I so testified. you Didn’t tes- tify in direct examination that Mr. you they Fuetterer told owed money him more than he my owed them? A. precise That was testimony. Q. you Then know did Mr. Fuetterer had a claim against them in action against on their him? claim A. To the implied. extent that Q. you statement Didn’t know, that claim Storage Battery Company Cincinnati assigned to Vourdon Fricke, that Mr. Fuetterer would not prove up be allowed to all the claim against Q. Vourdon No, Fricke? A. sir. You didn’t know A. sir; Q. that? No, didn’t know your it. You testified in direct examination Fricke, assignee, Vourdon got judgment against Fuetterer for the full Q. Yes, amount? A. sir. And you testified that Mr. represented'Mr. Gilbert right. Q. Fuetterer? A. That Now, jury state to the Gilbert, whether or not Mr. time, at that tried prove up this counterclaim in that case of Vourdon Fricke W. E. v. Fuetterer & Supplies Company? Q. A. He tried to. And didn’t prevent court Mr. trying from Gilbert to maintain the claim of against Fuetterer Vourdon ground Fricke on the right had no against assignee? make that claim A. tried, Mr. Fuetterer Q. that, when case was Yes, sir. So he claimed making claim from barred the court’s order against Storage Battery Company, as the Cincinnati Q. Fricke? A.' A. is Vourdon Yes, Vourdon Fricke? Who sir. Q. Employed the same man employee An of Mr. G-atewood. your brother, man Q. Employed by sir. the same Yes,

are? A. Q. Yes, V. A. sir. Do know what Vourdon John is? Battery Company claim paid the Cincinnati for its Fricke Q. against Seventy-five A. Cash or what? per Fuetterer? cent. ? Q. payable A. In note the form of note. When this due a was Q. paid yet. A. Has he note? . A. Not On demand. ever that sir, Q. Q. paid He No, has never that? A. So the Cincin- that Storage Battery assigned Company nati claim to this Vourdon yours Fricke, co-employee Lee, payable a and John for a on note Q. demand, right. which has never been collected? A. That paid? right Q. Or A. you very . . . Do recall That dis- you tinctly that called on at Fuetterer’s office November your memory good Q. point? Yes, on A. that Tell sir. us long how it assignment was after date that to that was made Q. Vourdon Fricke? A. I Precisely, don’t know. You can’t Q. recall that? A. No. important, That was rather under the Q. circumstances of A. I that suit? think was. didn’t it Don’t yon it important think was suit, that al- that not to put against lowed his counterclaim Fricke; Vourdon' didn’t you think quite important? developed Q. would A. It so. You develop had assignment no idea it would so when that was made? No, Q. A. you sir. Now, jury only told the reason it was assigned to Vourdon Fricke protect was to your fee? A. That was only Q. sole and Why reason. give then, did Fricke note, a payable on A. demand? For the consideration of that account. Q. signed Nobody. Q. Who else long that note? A. How has (Fricke) he you worked for John Lee and Gatewood? A. About years Q. ten or better. Does he a salary? work on A. Yes, sir. ' Q. Does he get part profits? also Q. No, A. sir. isHe on a profit-sharing No, Q. basis A. there? sir. . . Now, . Mr. Lee, you say you just a handled few small collections ? for Fuetterer Q. Yes, A. is, sir. The fact his business didn’t amount to much? A. Q. No, it didn’t. fact, In perfectly were willing, when $1200 along against claim came him, to throw his business out the window and take against this'Claim him? A. No, I didn’t do that. I went to him and I told him was representing a client to adverse him, told him the circumstances, begged and he bring me suit and protect my fee; that is'what did. Q. Lee, Mr. as I understand say, after the suit was filed Vourdon Fricke Battery & Supplies Company, claims had Mr. Fuet- office—claims into came office—claims

been in handle We continued Yes, sir. you? A. had sent terer Q. Then not to. told us until in our files awhile claims letter you received claims until handle these firm continued Q. Then so. not do Instructing- us A. Fuetterer? from Mr. (dated letter you received that Q. After Yes, A. sir. you ceased? dealings more ceased to your firm 26, 1924), February Yes, sir.” A. Mr. Fuetterer? examination direct Fuetterer testified William E. The defendant & Associ- firm of Gatewood with the that he had some transactions with- handled which were collections, concerning some small ates with the of his suit; most transactions suit, and others out had that he by correspondence; through the mail firm had were respecting suit Associates, Gatewood & at the office of called once in St. Company against partnership for the Fuetterer brought defendant John V. whom at which time he talked with Louis, represented Y. time, Lee; John Lee knew, only suit; called at de- John Y. Lee the trial of that defendant from the year 1922, respecting a claim due fendant’s office in the Wagoner Company, John Company Tire and that make a fee paid, he would V. told if the claim were Lee defendant (Lee) collecting claim, paid, if the claim not for but were Company; Wagoner and that would return the claim to the Tire pay defendant refused John Y. returned the claim, to and Lee Wagoner Company. claim to Tire Defendant Fuetterer denied plaintiff, Lee, had called at his office at time. He also testified that John Y. in De- Lee came to defendant’s office cember, 1923, January, the first week 1924. Defendant Fuet- terer respecting thus testified such interview: (John Lee) V. said, you “He ‘Do me?’ said, remember I ‘Your said, face is familiar.’ He ‘I am Mr. said, ‘Oh, yes; Lee.’ I come in.’ said, He sat down ‘I against you and have a claim the Cin- Storage Battery cinnati Company, amounting to twelve hundred some said, odd dollars.’ ‘I He handling your am I claims, want to fair with I you. this, If can collect per there If T is fifteen cent. go I court, your attorney to am I and I handle it.’ ‘All said, can’t right, Mr. I will you tell I about it.’ showed what I had done, putting men road, on gotten out and had catalogue, out a and through went all the matter. got through After we I walked to the door said, with him. right, He ‘That all I will Q. turn claim you back.’ say You talked to him about this Yes, sir; counterclaim? A. I showed advertising him the I put had T out, him T and told put had five men on road, and done bill- board newspaper advertising, and was trying to up build a Q. wholesale business batteries. What did that have to do with Storage contract with the Cincinnati A. I had a the counterclaim? concern, Battery July, president and about Company, business mine, sold out his interest personal friend of a Louis, Brenner, man in St. and a named to a named Bullock man Storage Cincinnati to run Cincinnati up and Brenner went to Q. my territory. Did they began sell in Company, I Yes, A. sir. told Mr. Lee you this time? tell this to Lee at up building knew I Mr. Brenner 1 had contract —that batteries, begun and he to shave a little business on the Cincinnati they territory, prices same were my selling into them at the go I selling me. had nine hole. couldn’t them to me They get up pro- I battery, out and another after had tried to build position. began asking batteries, Cincinnati customers (Lee) they I I not selling were them told him would here. pay if them, sue, because, and I to St. Louis and wanted them come I go had I them, down to Cincinnati sue would have to take my salesmen, advertising' agency, newspaper five men and put up advertising, and, they got couple man who the billboard continuances, up, the railroad fare and hotel bills would break me Q. T you had to they wait until sued me in St. Louis. Did (Lee) you ever tell him you? No, wanted him to sue sir. A. Q. .Now, all related the conversation had on oc- I casion? A. told him I counterclaim, figured had I also that eight door, between dollars, and nine thousand and we walked to the and he assured me that going he was to send the claim back people. Cincinnati He couldn’t handle the case. About four or days five afterwards, Sir. up give Lee called I asked me if would him copies of the invoices that we owed the Cincinnati Battery Company. I give right told him I couldn’t them off hand, I but girl would have up. girl make them instructed the get out the copies files and make and send them him. down to got ready to mail him, them down to but we hadn’t mailed them to got him—T glanced a document on me from the I served court. over put drawer, it and figured Storage it in the and Cincinnati Battery Company forgot had sued which I me, done, wanted and Spencer happened place about it until Mr. to drive about a gave piece week later. I Spencer paper, Mr. and it he read said, over. He ‘You haven’t been sued the Cincinnati Battery Company; you have been sued someone the claim was turned I said, said, over to.’ ‘What does that mean?’ He ‘You are it, just your just of luck out on pay counterclaim. You have you are and hooked.’ assigned, Then he told me had and been T up called & Lee, Gatewood Lee’s office and asked for Mr. and got T ’phone Q. him on the Which Mr. Lee? I A. don’t know. — said, I Lee,’ they put said, ‘Mr. and Mr. ’phone, Lee on and I any- said, ‘I never done me.’ He Lee, you

‘Mr. have double-crossed ‘I ‘You-certainly said, will thing said, I have.’ He sort.’ ‘ ’ out, you I I on know where am said, nose. Come punch you in the Q. you a that, did write hung . . And after up. . at,’ he and sir; wrote the Yes, A. I complaint to the Grievance Committee? A name was gentleman up called me and said his

Bar Association. attorney secretary Wescoat. He was the Grievance Mr. says Association, said, Committee of Bar ‘Your he letter Lee;” “Mr. you which There three Mr. Mr. Lee do mean? are said, there.’ He I Lees named the three them. ‘The fellow I So up know always is the man came done business with. He our place I several occasions and was down court. think they call I always Frank called him Mr. The next Lee. Lee.’ I heard, young up me to lady called and asked come down the following Friday I o’clock, Mr. Wescoat’s two went down to office. I there, sat down they fifteen minutes called me in about in, and began this Mr. to tell the Wescoat Grievance Committee that I charged being had pointed Lee, double-crossed Mr. Frank he Mr. Frank Lee. I said, ‘That is man I I not the mean. mean (indicating) this Lee ; here I man know as Frank Lee.’ (Wescoat) He said, ‘Well, change it, we have to because that man’s is John name Lee.’ Mr. said, Then Wescoat ‘We will have to with- charges draw the Frank said, Lee.’ I perfectly ‘That satis- factory.’ . put my . . E before Committee, ease the Grievance they my story heard and that all.” was “Q. Cross-examination: Now, you do seeing ever recall Frank Lee, present plaintiff, during years you doing were business you Gatewood ? A. Lee Lee ? Lee, Which do mean Frank A. gentleman (indicating)? here sir; A. we not until had No, Q. Bar meeting. Association That was the time? first A. That was I Q. seeing first time ever remember him. You had never seen him at the office Gatewood & Associates, he never had come up you? Q. to see A. No, During sir. all entire con- you name, versation did name, not ascertain the the first of the man Q. you? came out to see A.-No, sir. It was mentioned? A. I T think it was mentioned. think he said his name Frank was Lee. Q. you Did call him ? No, Q. Frank at time A. sir. When you wrote Bar Association, say you the letter you knew then his Q. was Frank Lee? you name A. No. Did he tell what his name you A. I I was? told understood said his Frank name was Lee. Q. you If understood his Frank Lee, you name why ivas didn’t put the name of Lee the letter sent to the Bar Association ? thought only A. there was one Mr. Lee, making complaint Q. against doing with whom I business. You charge making lawyer know when are a letter

122.1 you charge If Fuetterer No, A. sir. full name? you have show the charged. only one Battery Service, would be there double-crossed Q. charged Mr. Lee You that I would the one. Q. you man whom And that the you? sir; correct. Yes, A. that is sir; I think charged Yes, Frank Lee? A. you told his name letter? Q. you ‘Frank’ put Why didn’t that is what he said. Lee,’ would of Gatewood Lee, Lee, I one and ‘Mr. A. knew only I Frank? Q. A. name, the first that was catch him. You knew Q. my place of business. thought Lee, Frank he was in he said when Q. thought on had a mere thought Yes, You You he said it? A. sir. you subject? your place, man came into said, when this You gentleman A. thought Frank Lee? When the he his name was said my my ‘My best of office, came he said to me—to the recollection— Q. being your recollection, I Frank If the best of that, name is Lee.’ put you why you in the jury will ask to the court and didn’t to state I made name of Frank Lee in letter? A. Because didn’t think it &Lee, difference. When I firm of and knew wrote to the Gatewood only Lee, Mr. Lee one Mr. it couldn’t be mistaken for but the anybody Q. my try more place. that was in Did to ascertain if there was you Q. I A. than one Lee? had 1 did not. You No, no made reason— change against designating particular Mr. Lee, without Lee what was, name; ? his Christian that is A. true That true. Q. You jury your personal mean to tell this that Mr. Lee was at- torney? sir; Q. you Yes, A. commercial And our matters. were acquainted Q. him? A. sir. And know his Yes, didn’t what sir; Q. you Yes, first name was? A. is true. When wrote let- you telephone call on Association, ter Bar had a from Mr. secretary Q. Bar A. Wescoat, Yes, Association? sir. And you you meant, you asked Lee then he what and told there was several associated with Gatewood & A. Lees Associates? That is correct. He Q. you of them. told me there were three And then told Mr. Wescoat you name of man came A. that the who to see Frank Lee? words, Not in those I didn’t. I told him who called the man to see Lee, my me I affairs, was Mr. who handled all think commercial Q. you his name was Frank Lee. And said Mr. Wescoat told Yes, I there were three —. A. sir. That was the first time ever knew Q. you more Lee. When there was than one told Mr. Wescoat charged party you that the name of the wanted was Frank he told you, charge not, No, did he he would make the Frank? A. sir; they I going he didn’t tell me that. didn’t know what were Q. him, do. You told all events— A. told him that man my business, who called me was the man who handled know Lee, thought Lee, they him his name was as Mr. business, who handled Fuetterer’s up would call Gatewood & Q. thought Did get name. tell they will the correct I didn’t think that Yes, Frank? A. sir. name was this man’s names. years would switch doing firm business with me four that was Q. Lee, your he did So Frank that when he inserted name I authority? authority. didn’t know what he my A. Not with was Q. going you letter, When wrote that what to do with the name. your bring man before purpose writing was the letter ? A. To doing they reprimand him Bar that would for Association so Q. something profession. in his You crooked wanted that was A. I possible, Association? didn’t man, have that disbarred brought I him say disbarred, him wanted beforé I wanted but Q. charges against Bar, high. You wanted these to hold his ideals brought letter, before the Bar Association Lee, Mr. made in that it? punished for A. I wrote Committee, and wanted Grievance him — n reprimanded I him that letter to the Bar Association wanted Q. witness). A. correct? (Previous question repeated Is that Q. again, it too. What Yes, sir; correct, and I would do that I punished? A. wanted you expect gain having Mr. Lee did highest lawyers held in the I it, reputation because wanted the lawyer they feel that they public, hire esteem the so that when highest I quality, and didn’t want they hiring a are man Q. dragged through you expect, when dirt. Did you knocking out the claim brought charge, you that would succeed I knew No, sir, A. Battery Company? of the Cincinnati law- raise the I I knew I hooked. wanted was done for. claim Q. Mr. Wes- recall yers’standing society. you . . in our . Do against Lee, Frank you not lie complaint eoat would told Storage Battery Com- bring (Cincinnati as Frank Lee didn’t Q. tell me that. pany) suit; you No, A. he didn’t he told that? Q. No, sir. not true? A. That is You heard him so state? A. Yes. Lee, Q. ‘This case of Frank you say, him is the Then heard also changed name has to be me, but now the name he that is the told got up, I him When Lee?’ A. You never heard state that. to John Q. You heard the man; I man.’ ‘That is not the this is the said, Q. Yes, A. sir. changed to John Lee? name was from Frank Lee against My complaint John Lee? A. complaint proceeded And the Q. against You identified Lee. proceeded Mr. Lee of Gatewood Q. You Frank Lee. him A. T identified as the man as John Lee—(cid:127) Q. know anyhow? You Yes, A. sir. him, identified charge A. was never charge dropped? There against him complaint Q. no against say have You now that man. Lee, Frank against good, indifferent, to make character, bad or complaint make is I plaintiff A. only in this case? The was John learned I afterwards I as Frank who that man knew not case, did Q. sitting plaintiff man, there, Lee. That Q. didn’t him. He sir; know you? No, A. even double-cross don’t Q. You way? No, A. sir. ascertained you in attempt to deceive hearing to see man identity that came out ? the Bar Association the man at Association; you found out the Bar Yes, you? A. to see Q. Frank never came say now Yes, sir. You A. him; know you? A. Didn’t Q. thing to even And never did a sir. you ever Q. did tell the my Kindly jury, life. never saw Bar Associa- having brought him before the apologize man learned to Lee, afterwards, I knew tion? A. man Q. he was en- INo, apologized. You didn’t think John Lee? never ? Q. injustice. Frank Lee grave ? A. I me a titled to it think he did Q. Mr. Frank never The I V. Lee A. man know as John Lee now. But you him any injustice? I know-him. Never saw before did A. didn’t Q. offering or to apologize, this You never letter case. wrote a to ? I any bringing A. never way, brought him into apologize, for this Q. had any brought He himself. You him into trouble. this suit never I this anything anything do it? A. never had to with to do with Lee, Q. Fuetterer, you suit. consulted Mr. never once with anybody Associates, firm or of Gatewood & about the claim thought you Com- you against Storage Battery had the Cincinnati Q. I pany? I prior A. mean talked with them. to over coming No, of I it you? time Mr. Lee to A. never talked out see Q. whatsoever', employing purpose, over with them. You had no represent Gatewood, any firm, you or to in this member Q. thought employ. I I given claim? A. was to hadn’t it who A. spoken Spencer spoken You I had to had the matter? to about Q. you figured out, you several Then men about the matter. when you willing give you, Mr. talked who came to see were not to claim; him, when you firm what or at least came said to he figured you, you compromise, you would couldn’t he out to see try compromise. had drop A. He told me I the case? He didn’t good case.” “Q. (to the you When wrote this letter Re-direct examination: Committee), you contained all the statements Grievance did believe Q. you And wrote let- Yes, in that letter to true? A. sir. Yes, A. sir.” letter, you? did purpose for stated in the ter plaintiff, the first time testified, V. on behalf John Lee Wescoat, office Mr. met he the defendant Fuetterer hearing Lee the Griev- complaint before at the very The ance the Bar Association. witness denied Committee of place positively that he had ever called at office business Fuetterer, Fuetterer, and that had ever told defendant place, witness, time or name Frank Lee. John his he had never had conversation Jjee, Y. further testified that anv busi- he had transacted and that never whatsoever hearing ness, otherwise, Fuetterer, prior before legal hearing Committee, solely which Grievance witness attended attorney legal representative brother, his Frank Lee. Glossmeyer, Miss Celeste of plaintiff, witness behalf testified stenographer that she was employed corporate as a defendant part during a years 1923 and “Mr. Fuetterer (defendants) and Miss day, Greene came me one and it Avas either December, January, 1924, and Mr. Fuetterer AA'antedme to make a statement before the Bar Association that Mr. Flank Lee had papers come to office and he had been shown all the correspondence all the in the case of the Cincinnati Battery Company. I I it, told Mr. Fuetterer wouldn’t do because said, was a lie. good you Miss ‘Mr. Fuetterer has been Greene me, him, and that is the least can do for to make a state ’ before Bar. said, statement, ment will not make the because go it is a lie. You can what to, ahead and do want but won’t ” cross-examination, make a statement.’ On the witness admitted defendant, that there had been some trouble between witness and the they Greene, friendly. Estelle and that were Both Mr. not Miss positively Greene denied conversation related witness, and defendants’ evidence was the further effect that Glossmeyer Miss employ corporate left defendant on day Thanksgiving, November, 1923, prior before the call of Mr. Lee office, employed by at defendant’s and'AArasnot the cor porate any part during of December, defendant or thereafter. (who defendant, Greene, The Mr. Estelle testified that a Lee AAras by Lee) identified Greene as John V. Miss trial called at the place Company of office and of the Fuetterer business latter part December, January, 1924, part of or first of and dis Company” cussed “the matter Cincinnati Fuetterer; defendant, Avith the "William E. the Mr. Lee who said, introducing Mr. Fuetterer himself at the time of bis called on call, “I am Mr. Frank Lee.” defendant, Spencer, categorically Henry PI. denied that he had time, plaintiff, (Spencer)" “going get

told the that he was (plaintiff) assignment him” because of the the account claim Storage Battery Company Fricke. Cincinnati to Yourdon he, personally, opposed Spencer Mr. filing to the further testified against nlaintiff Avith the. Grievance Com- comnlaiut Association, “impractical he an because deemed it mittee Bar presenting” matter. method of "Wescoat, secretary

Mr. of the GrieAmnce Clarence Committee of respect Association, testified with the St. Louis Bar to the letter Committee, hearing and the before the Grievance received thereon, as follows: committee letter, it, upon I reading and “Upon receipt of this saw that the complained sufficiently not so party name of clear investigate I might telephone it. called Mr. I Fuetterer and told Lee,’ I read, ‘Mr. and knew there were at least him his letter two Lees Associates, & I which one Gatewood and asked him with W. 0. me, apply to, he of those intended this letter to told Lees Lee,’ thereupon I inserted the word ‘Frank’ ‘Frank Q. anything said Mr. Fuetterer at time letter. Was there charge against ? having hearing of this Frank reference to Lee with hearing. anything I don’t know' whether he said about a Well, A. I know' course, Of him would have to the name the at told we torney hearing, or take before wrecould have a action whatever. Q. only Q. Yes, man was Frank? A. Then he told sir. that, you And, inserted the name ‘Frank’ A. after letter? assembled, Yes, course, ... sir. Of after committee had office, Mr. V. Lee Mr. Frank Lee came into the John I I Mr. respondent, stated That Frank Lee was the as we think this: him, represented by brother, V. called and that he wras his John said, John V. pointed Lee. Mr. Fuetterer then Lee and ‘This me,’ something sort, then, see the man that came to course, I and Mr. John Lee explained V. committee, T Lee, Mr. Frank inserted the word ‘Frank’ in W'hy had I Mr. just read. them had called Fuetterer letter that has been told telephone were in Gate- over the and told him there at least tw'o Lees only two, wood Associates—I knew" John and Frank —and Q. meant, said, asked -which one he and he ‘Frank.’ When presence of Mr. statement, made that in the Fuetterer Committee, deny Mr. the Grievance did members of Yes, sir; A. you? he made he didn’t admit that that statement to it, Q. deny no. -wasmade Fuetterer that After the statement person charge complaint he meant with the he had made Lee, Lee, was not Frank what then became of the com but John plaint any complaint against A. There Lee? wasn’t Q. My Frank Lee then. was done it? A. What record here complaint, shows that was amended to describe John V. Q. investigation no further

and not Frank Lee. Then there was against by Grievance A. complaint Frank Lee the Committee? the fact, No; Q. against complaint of whatever. As a matter the none him will A. There is no com be considered Association? not the plaint Q. only complaint against him. V. now John Lee, Yes, is that correct? A. sir.” “ course, you Q. Cross-examination: Of when received this letter you Fuetterer; up which Mr. Mr. when mentioned Lee called Fuetterer, you Q. say talked to was Frank A. he said it Lee? Yes. Lee,’ say, ‘I he his name was Frank some- Or did he think said or Lee,’ positive thing ‘Frank t.o that effect? Are vou sure he said statement, said, T ‘T A. he Frank?’ think it was think it said positive Q. was yon statement. Are sure of that? A. That is years ago, two or more expect can't me to remember tele- phone long Q. ago. conversations possible that It is that Fuetterer said, ‘I think he said his possible.” name is Frank Lee?’ A. It is

One of the members of the Grievance Committee testified that the brothers, two Lee, Frank Lee and John Y. appeared the before ‘‘ ’’ committee at they the same time, good alike, and that looked a deal from which testimony fairly may it might be inferred that difficult, having for one merely or slight acquaintance casual with brothers, distinguish the two Lee identify one from brother the other. The insertion of the name “Frank” in the defendants’ letter

February 12, 1924, addressed to the Grievance Committee the St. Association, Louis Bar pencil was done Mr. in lead 'Wescoat writing, caret, above a sentence, one paragraph, only of the let- ter, thus: many years “For the firm of 0. & As- W. Gatewood sociates, legal International Building, handling Life have been me, business for acquainted well become rather Frank AMr. Lee of firm my personal and have considered him at torney in commercial matters.” I. Appellant assigns error in the action the trial court permitting defendants, W. E. & Supplies Company and William Fuetterer, E. answer, an to file amended during trial, the course of objection exception over the

plaintiff. Appellant claims amended answer so

^y changed substantially aforesaid defendants interposed by original the defense answer of defend- ants, original general only which answer was a denial plaintiff’s petition. averments of The record begun herein shows the trial of the action was on April 20, 1926, and that the first plaintiff witness behalf of F. Wescoat, secretary Clarence Grievance Committee During St. Bar the direct Louis Association. the course of witness, Wescoat, day and on the first examination objection trial, interposed on of defendants to the an behalf evidence, letter defend- by plaintiff, written introduction September 12, 1924, and addressed William E. dated ant, Association, after Louis Bar Grievance of the St. Committee by interlinea- “Frank” therein was made insertion of name aver does not ground petition by Wescoat, upon tion Mr. and interline to insert Wescoat authorized Mr. that defendants defendant, letter written “Frank” name concerning, plaintiff, of, alleged written to have letter been letter not fact pleaded petition, was in the by defendant, published by written delivery tlie of the reason of such letter to Grievance Committee of Bar Association. Upon overruling objection by court, such trial counsel for thereupon defendants “In stated to the court: view of the court’s ruling, permitted ask leave to be at time to file an amended answer;” request replied: “Very to which court I will well, give you morning until tomorrow to file amended answers.” No objection protest or by whatsoever is shown the record to have been by plaintiff’s made at that time granting counsel to the of such leave by the April court. On the day, 21, 1926, next the defendants filed pursuance amended answer granted day of the leave on the before, witness, and while the first Wescoat, yet testifying. was plaintiff Counsel interposed objection an filing not, answer, however, upon ground amended urged now appeal, changed substantially amended answer namely, defense, wholly ground but different amended pleaded answer imperfectly, or defectively, improperly, and set forth the matters of suggested defense. was not It the court counsel plaintiff filing surprised by of the amended answer, or did plaintiff request adjournment a continuance or No trial. motion plaintiff made any portion strike out of the amended answer, any or was require motion made to defendants to make the specific, any answer more and certain, definite or was made, motion pleading filed, otherwise attacking the amended answer. On the contrary, plaintiff filed reply, denying generally at that time a each allegation and every of fact contained in said amended answer. Upon pleadings, proceeded objection such the trial any. without parties, of the April 23, and was terminated on 1926, days two after filing pleadings. of such 1919) The Civil Code (Sec. 1274, provides: of this State R. S. may, “The court at time final judgment, before furtherance justice, proper, on such may terms as amend pleading, by inserting alleglations ... other material recognized case,” policy etc. It is the and universal law that allowing pleadings, courts should be liberal amendments to justice, statute, supra, very langugage furtherance and the its recognizes intent, clearly expresses policy such of the law. statute, foregoing and the universal policy In view therein, repeatedly it has been ruled that the courts expressed law in permitting liberal as the statute should, least, be as lenient and judgment pleadings to be made before final and in amendments 450; Wright justice. Moss, 87 Mo. v. v. [Carr furtherance It said that amendments are favored 246 Mo. Groom, 163.] joining tending delay issue on the true courts, to avoid 1228 litigated bring to end,

merits ol a cause and controversies to an amendments, the rule is to allow rather that than refuse them. [Wright supra; Groom, Duncan, 453; v. House v. 50 Corrigan Mo. App. 649, 38 Brady, law, v. Mo. At common the amendment 657.] pleadings regarded exclusively aas matter so addressed to the refusal, discretion of trial court that or the its allowance as the might be, upon ease appeal. could not be reviewed writ of or error Ency. Pleading Practice, p. The section of our Civil [1 524.] merely Code, supra, declarative and in aid of the common law. Hence, discretionary uniformly been it has ruled this court that it is permit pleadings the trial court to amendments to be made judgment, justice, out of time and before final in furtherance of departure from, be clear change in, unless there and substantial action, original claim or cause of the defense. Such discretion of rarely court appellate trial interfered with courts of only then when the trial court State, has abused palpably permitting, refusing, discretion in or in amendment to be [Wright Groom, supra; 267; 44 Ranson, 263, v. Allen v. Mo. made. 263 127 253, ; Railway Co., 154 Mo. Clark v. Mo. Growney, v. Joyce 255, 269; Drainage River District v. Railroad 236 Mo. Co., Little 94, 113.] opinion the amended answer made no

We are of that substantial change prejudice plain and worked no harm or defense, in the say Nor herein. can we in appellant tiff and view of (especially filing objection the record discloses that no fact that interposed by plaintiff upon specific the amended answer was defense) ground changed original the amended answer that palpably permitting filing discretion in court abused its the trial Furthermore, answer. it is the established rule the amended objection be to the allowance of an amendment should made “an asked, order himself of error and, amend is to avail when leaA^eto objecting granting party should stand on the amendment, objection amendment, ruling, by pleading since he waives the recognizing otherwise the amended going thereon, trial 751, 752; Ingwerson Railway Co., v. Mo. pleading.” Cyc. [31 362, App. 358, Grymes Co., Mill 111 Mo. 336; v. & Lumber 328. Sanguinett Webster, 367; Liese cited; v. 153 Mo. and cases there assignment must Appellant’s of error Meyer, v. 143 Mo. 556.] be denied. urged by appellant the trial seems,

II. It however, by defend- answer to be filed permitting amended court erred out matter set ground, that the reason, for the ants pleaded only the amended answer could been mitigation, by way -justification, plea and not and that privilege set out in the amended answer is defective and imperfect in plea that such does not set forth sufficient writing publication facts to show that alleged defamatory by defendants privileged, letter merely legal privileged but states the conclusion letter was a urged by pleas communication. appellant It seems also to be justification privilege, separately and of which are and set stated out in the answer, plea amended are inconsistent with the general general issue, denial, pleaded or also the amended answer.

We think appellant that has purport legal misconceived the and effect the pleaded matter in the amended answer. We do not view pleaded mitigation, such matter as or as intended pleader plea as and for a mitigation; regard contrary, we and view such plea justification, matter of amended as a answer together separately with a plea privilege. stated Nor can we agree appellant’s with insistence and contention that the matter of the amended answer constitutes mere matter of that mitigation, and such only pleaded can in mitigation, matter be and should been so have pleaded. Code of

Our Civil Procedure respect liberal with is to the defenses answering available an defendant, specifically prescribes and that may defendant forth “the set answer as many defenses and may they have, counterclaims as he whether be such as been legal 1233, equitable, or R. S. heretofore denominated or both.” [Sec. general rule, It application, seems to be almost of universal 1919.] plea justification plea

that privilege and a inconsistent are not general plea with a denial, general or with a issue, of the and that all joined may pleas they such answer, provided defenses be in one separately C. J. be 39, stated. Such [37 seems 40.] jurisdiction. rule in v. uniform our own State and Brod [Nelson 198; 48 App. 193, 44 hack, 596, 599; Mo. Nelson v. Mo. Wallace, Hilbish, App. 389, v. 23 Mo. Wood 397.] holding) assuming separate pleas of (without so

But imperfectly pleaded in are stated and justification privilege and of pleas answer, such is inconsistent amended and either of pleaded answer, record general denial the amended require to elect defendants plaintiff filed no motion to discloses de- or to strike pleaded, defenses the several as between de- require any of the answer, or to amended pleas from the fenses contrary, definite. On the pleas specific to be made more fenses reply filing answer the amended plaintiff over to plead elected to By filed. pleadings with the trial thereto, proceed and to 1230 appellant

so doing, plaintiff has waived the inconsistencies be, in deficiencies, if there answer, the amended and will appeal urge ground not be heard on such matter reversal Cyc. judgment 727; Co., Stark & 719, Knapp below. v. [31 552; 160 529, 285; Mo. 164 Railway 270, Harper Rinard v. Mo. Co., 690; v. Fidler, App. Broyhill Mo. v. Mo. Norton, 190, imperfections pleading Such are deficiencies “cured 202.] by verdict,” under our Statute of R. S. Jeofails. [Sec. 1919.] assigned by

JIT. appellant Error in the action of the trial respecting giving court and the refusal of certain instructions. urged giving jury It defendants’ instruction numbered 6 error. Such reads: constitutes reversible instruction jury you find

“The court'instructs if believe from plaintiff the evidence that the Frank was the came Lee one who out to see defendant about the claim Cincinnati Battery your Company, and "W. further find that at that time O. representing &

Gatewood Associates were defendant & Supplies fuetterer Company, employed by that said Lee was Gatewood defendant W. Associates who called on E. Fuetterer Storage Battery Company, about claim the Cincinnati that, Frank Lee that said then and there told said Fuetterer Supplies & representation Battery on of of account the the Fuetterer Company & & that Gatewood Associates Gatewood Associates by Storage Battery Company for the could not act the Cincinnati contested, said Fuetterer going claim to and that defendant was Frank confidential relying upon of said Lee and the said statements Company and said existing defendant Fuetterer relation between and said Ftank Lee Associates, if told the that any, & Gatewood against Company had a claim said Cincinnati Fuetterer the defendant interpose Battery breach contract and would Storage Company for of Company Storage Battery Cincinnati more against said a claim Battery Company against Storage Cincinnati the of the the claim than not have file suit Company, would to Battery & Supplies Fuetterer gave there, and that said Fuetterer said send witnesses Cincinnati and Lee, and that after Mr. Frank Lee only Mr. Frank information said Storage Bat- claim of the Cincinnati acquired the said information so Fricke said Fricke and that assigned to Vourdon tery Company was W. employee O. & Associates of said Gatewood an then and there was assignee as Cincinnati Fricke was filed said and that suit the W. E. Fuetterer Bat- Storage Company, defendant Battery assignment precluded of said was on account tery Supplies Company & against Storage Cincinnati asserting claim said Battery its from against plaintiff.” suit, your verdict must be the in said Company, purpose foregoing Tlie obvious oí the instruction was submit jury justification, the which present- the issue issue is raised complaint by appel- ed defendants’ amended made answer. against tlie lant instruction is that the instruction “is not within case, evidence, the issues the of the and is contradictory neither pleadings upon based the nor minds, the evidence.” To our the joined instruction is well within the pleadings issues raised and the cause; ample and the record discloses and sufficient evidence upon finding jury to predicate respecting which each and hypotheses all of Appellant’s the several of the instruction. chief argument against grounded upon the instruction to be seems testimony defendants, E. William Fuetterer Estelle Greene, in which said identified Y. Lee defendants John as the who upon respecting individual called claim Fuetterer Battery Storage Company, upon testimony Cincinnati Lee, any time, plaintiff, never, said defendants Frank had at place business, called defendants’ officeand and that defendants at never, legal otherwise, any business, had transacted time, However, Lee, Frank Frank plaintiff, plaintiff, Lee. with quite positively who was the individual testified “handled Battery Storage Company claim” the Cincinnati corporate defendant, upon respecting who the defendants called equally plaintiff’s brother, Lee, John V. was such claim. The positive plaintiff’s action, testimony in his trial of the which testimony acquaintance Y. that John Lee had no the effect prior transactions whatsoever defendant Fuetterer publication the letter written Fuetterer Com- Grievance Greene, Estelle testi- defendant, the Bar Association. The mittee of Fuetterer, respecting Mr. Lee who called defendant that the fied claim, introduced himself Company the Cincinnati testified that he Frank defendant place of business thought individual called at Fuetterer’s who testimony Frank There is his Lee. some said that name good brothers, John, “looked a Lee two effect disputed seriously be evidence cannot It alike.” deal had firm W. 0. Gatewood Associates shows that law clearly defendant, on behalf the for collection accounts several handled prior the on which Supplies Company, date & Battery Fuetterer & W. 0. Associates representative of Gatewood individual some respecting the E. William defendant upon the called W. 0. Gate- claim, and that Battery Company Storage Cincinnati for, yet handling some matters collection were & Associates wood on and the on corporate defendant after date of, behalf and on defamatory to the Grievance letter Committee alleged which published. According and Bar Association delivered testimony plaintiff, employee he was an of the law firm of "W. 0. Associates, and, charge employee, & such “had Gatewood of cases that came into the office from out-of-town clients,” and “himself Storage Battery claim Company [obviously, handled the of Cincinnati against an out-of-town E. William Fuetterer” and the client] corporate defendant, and, employment in course of and duties, his he went to place see Fuetterer at latter’s office and of business representative employers, as the individual of his W. 0. Gatewood plaintiff Associates. It true that, is denies occasion call, such he made the statements and remarks attributed to plaintiff: defendant However, Fuetterer. admitted by his own ‘‘ testimony told me that. the Storage Cincinnati Battery money them,” owed him more than owed and Company that the claim or account of the Cincinnati Company against corporate assigned defendant was Frike, Vourdon an employee of W. 0. & Associates, purpose protect- Gatewood for the ing plaintiff, employers, W. 0.. Associates, or his Gatewood & in the handling collection of a fee for such claim or While account. there in testimony is considerable conflict and parties, their witnesses, respective we think there is substantial evidence in the finding record which of, to warrant the submission and a jury hypotheses the several upon, each of defendants’ Instruc- jury, tion No. 6. for It was as the exclusive the facts, triers of to reconcile and settle the conflicts and in evidence, differences in arriving perceive at their verdict. We no reversible in the error giving .of such instruction.

Appellant complains of error plaintiff’s the refusal of re quested E, reads, part, Instruction which as follows: “At ease, of all close the evidence in the jury the court instructs that, under plaintiff the evidence and law case, this entitled

to recover you may defendants whom those find and believe from the evidence combined and confederat together ed purpose for injuring plaintiff means evidence, methods mentioned or who thereafter (if your into plan any), entered such purpose verdict must plaintiff.” The instruction then directs the [Italics ours.] for jury as to plaintiff’s damages. the measure of actual The re quested unquestionably peremptory instruction mandatory character, form plaintiff. for directs verdict The re quested properly rightly instruction was refused the trial It court. has been ruled court that “it is now well settled power that a trial court no plaintiff has to direct a verdict in an though compel may action for libel, nonsuit or direct verdict for defendant in proper Evans, a case.” v. Mo. [Patterson 303; Publishing Co., Heller v. 153 Mo. 214. ]

Appellant complains plaintiff’s requested of error of the refusal I, which Instruction reads: “You are that, case, instructed in this justification pleaded, only there is no general but a plea a denial and

negation, publication and the admitted pleadings, mitigation and under the law matter in damages is not by a actual sustained defense one been mitigation only who has and such matter in can defamed, damages.” by jury by reducing be considered way punitive of The committed refusing trial no error in court such instruction. grounded upon The misconception refused instruction is of pleaded in defendants’ pleaded matter amended answer. The matter justification, plea the amended answer constitutes a of and a separately plea privilege. answer, stated The amended our opinion, plead mitigation. does not matter of assigned plaintiff’s

Error H. in the refusal of Instruction error, be, in such not there the refusal of called instruction assignment by any plaintiff’s to the attention of the trial court trial, new instruction, motion for a reference to the refused general specific, respecting contained in such motion. Error in- for correction structions not called to the attention the trial court appeal. will An examination appellate not reviewed court on be part, however, refused our us to the instruction on leads properly conclusion that instruction refused. assigned formally assigned, are errors but such errors

Other are appellant’s argu- printed not discussed or to in brief referred is directed to ment, will Our attention be treated abandoned. us. herein, find record before no none reversible error we judgment Notwithstanding IV. nisi should our conclusion be find error to have been affirmed we reversible committed because no opinion that, upon pleadings we court, the trial are also of the judgment right for the herein, the verdict are and the evidence This, judgment nisi should be affirmed. parties, and therefore the letter, of the defendants’ publication we deem for the reason that St. Louis the Grievance Committee of the delivered to addressed and complaint respect- (which in the nature of letter is Bar Association writer have been suffered grievance ing claimed say, (that is to privileged qualifiedly letter), publisher of such to render was such as such letter publication the occasion substantial we find no privileged), qualifiedly publication part actual, malice on the express, in the record evidence such publication letter. writing in the defendant Ü234

Privileged publications to of or classes: kinds, are said be two (2) (1) “absolutely privileged,” those Those which are “qnalifiedly privileged.” or conditionally which are The former spoken or reference or written term, classification, has to words judicial in legislative, executive, proceedings, course of certain or present publications and such class involved in privileged of is not classification, action. “a term, publication The latter or is defined-as on an prima-faeie legal made occasion which furnishes a excuse the making it;of privileged, and which is some additional fact unless is which prevent shown so alters the character occasion as to furnishing legal it a excuse.” on Slander Libel [Townshend Ed.) (4 says: learned sec. same furthermore The text-writer 209.] “Privileged comprehend all communications statements made bona- performance fide in duty, purpose of or with fair reasonable a a protecting person making of them, of or the interest interest person of they whom A to are made. communication made upon subject-matter bona-fide party communicating in which the interest, has an in to privileged, or reference which duty, he has a is person having made a to a corresponding duty, although interest or which, it contain criminatory matter, privilege, without this would be privileged slanderous and actionable. But in definition of a communication, duties, ckity legal the word confined ‘cannot be to may which by indictment, action, mandamus, be enforced or must but include imperfect obligation.’ moral and social duties of right to seek seeking redress is not limited to in it a court justice. Every one aggrieved, who is or who has reasonable and probable aggrieved, cause may, good to believe himself faith, in seek redress from officer, body, individual, or having jurisdiction, power, authority or wrong. to wrong supposed redress the or What spoken ever in pursuit or written such privileged.” a for redress is [Idem., secs. 209 and 237.] Corpus “Qualified 36 Juris, 1241, In privilege is said: it in exists larger

a number cases than privilege. does absolute It relates interests; to particularly private more comprehends communica- good faith, made in tions without actual malice, with or reasonable probable grounds for to believing true, subject-matter them be upon a in which author of interest, communication has an or in a public, reference to which has duty, personal, private, or either judicial, moral, legal, political, social, having or person made a corresponding duty. a Briefly qualifiedly interest stated, or a privileged communication is a defamatory communication made on privilege what is called an occasion of without actual malice. to As such liability.” communications no there is civil Waring In v. (Ire.), McCaldin Ire. L. 282, C. B., Fitzgerald, speaking Exchequer, for the Court of superior one courts in Ireland, aptly principle respecting thus announces rule law privileged publications: making occasion of occasions and “The defamatory privileged it one communication is thus is made —when having duty make, particular making, or an interest defamatory (the duty respect communication interest or subject-matter from mere form communication, distinct having expression corresponding interest language), to one duty respect subject-matter say, who has an is to —that hearing, defamatory such duty interest or a hearing, arise express malice, communication. ... make a If, without true, against one defamatory charge, believe which bona-fide injury, to one respect caused me whose conduct defamed has reasonably be, inquire duty duty I believe it whose whose is, injury, redress occasion is because into and such privileged, person subject-matter my charge, of and the an interest in the has, hearing the communica- to whom make the communication respect discharge of it.” tion, duty a to quoted 268, 152 Co., Mo. this court 277,

In Sullivan v. Commission Ed.) (2 pp. to & Libel approvingly from on Slander Newell good privileged is follows: “A communication one made as communicating has subject-matter party which upon faith honestly has, which he or believes an interest or in reference to duty, and having corresponding or interest has, duty, person a to a a upon which it is occasion which, without the which matter contains defamatory pub- Every made, defamatory actionable. would be is communication but where a implies malice, facie prima lication any subject-matter communi- good faith, in which the upon made in legal, duty, which he has a to an or reference .cant has interest duty, corresponding interest or person having a social, moral to or a malice, of presumption privilege rebuts the privileged, is prove express proof upon plaintiff of is cast and the burden ’’ malice. Cox, 318 Mo. Zorn v. very case, rel. In recent State ex a said: “The this court Division Two of 837, 840, 118, 298 S. W. qualifiedly prima-facie was therefore (i. e., publication) article principle a (cited) hold to the the above cases privileged, for circumstances where qualifiedly privileged prima-facie publication is what others duty right to communicate respect or to a obtain with only legal, but though it is not a ought know, right they even of obligation.” imperfect duty of a moral or social sought plaintiff 70, 72, Hasbrouck, 17 R. I. wherein McKnight v. In publication arising out of the libel, for of the defendant recovery practitioner State medical a defendant, letter, written secretary Island, addressed and delivered of Rhode Homeopathic Society York, pro- Medical of the of New State testing against plaintiff honorary selection of member an New York of, Medical in which letter defendant stated Society, hardly concerning, plaintiff seems like (plaintiff) that “he being worthy upheld by society one who New York like the Supreme Society,” State Island stated Court of Rhode thus “ well prevailing respecting communications: It rule such bona-fide dis- settled that when one makes a communication in the charge duty is, appears be, upon of a which or cast circumstances, privileged communication, and it is a a defence to an action of libel or slander.” Cush.) (5 412, 415, said Storrs,

In 59 Mass. Farnsworth v. leading subject privileged text-writers to case oc- arising for publications, casions and and which an action libel publication from a of a of excommunication out sentence church, pronounced congre- upon plaintiff to the church and read gation by defendant, J., speaking Supreme C. for the Shaw, authority Massachusetts, Judicial Court of “Churches have said: conduct; deal with for immoral their members and scandalous decide; purpose, complaints, hear to take evidence and to by way proper and, upon conviction, punishment to administer rebuke, censure, suspension . The pro- and excommunication. ceedings quasi-judicial, and therefore who church are those pronounce re- complain, give testimony, vote, act and orally scope sult, writing, acting good faith, or in and within the falsely authority jurisdiction, and not conferred this limited pretense covering colorably, making proceedings a for an or such . . The and protected by lair. . church scandal, intended are religious society, congregation, purposes, associated to some form one religious pastor improvement. for The church under one and minister covenant, purposes by body, apart special constitutes a select set congregation. Other members part at the same time forms of the may, upon application, become members congregation of suitable the general religious in the church, and common interest of the all have a of great purpose One of an act church other. welfare of each whole salutary the is, may a influence discipline religious offender is a member.” body, ours.] of which the [Italics com privileged publication of written oral respecting

The law leading American discussed, and the exhaustively munications was thoroughly subject were dealing English with authorities United States speaking for the by reviewed, Mr. Justice Daniel, Nicholls, 3 How. v. leading White case of Supreme in Court prin or prevailing rule S.) (U. 591, 600, L. wherein 266, Ed. conditionally, or is publication that a ciple was announced to.be qualifiedly, privileged “whenever publisher the author and of the alleged slander discharge public acted the bona-fide of a private or legal duty, moral; prosecution or or in the of his rights own or ’’ interest. review, A part, juristic on our of numerous authorities which deal subject privileged publications of occasions and has not led to the discovery us involving precise of any question case publication whether a complaint, of or communication, submitting a professional body, bar association, such as a for redress, sup- a grievance posed suffered the communicant, is qualifiedly privi- leged. may There jurisdictions, such cases be other but we have precise not discovered them. question however, seems, to be jurisdiction. impression one of our first own State and Upon principle, logical we see distinction, no reasonable or or difference, a professional between body association, such bar composed as a of legal profession, various individual of practitioners and other up made having bodies of various individuals a common and mu- purpose, corporations, tual interest and such churches, as medical societies, bankers, If merchants, or commission brokers. pub- church, of lication a communication to a or to stockholders and corporation, conditionally, directors a or a medical society, qualifiedly, privileged, seemingly or held to be the established weight juristic by analogy, authority, then, rule the rule applicable addressed equally publication a communication association, having authority to a bar or to one its committees, inquire.into grievance supposed complained examine be. grievance, if there communicant, such and to redress societies, medical bodies, Professional as bar associations and such intimately with, have a in- are concerned direct immediate in, professional conduct of the various individuals who terest body comprise profession, of the in order that the acts and con- professional acting in individuals, while ca- of such a duct performance professional engaged service pacity, while reproach upon, may bring duty, be such as not to discredit body profession. in, destroy public and trust confidence good faith communication, written publication If of a such communication, and delivered to and addressed author honestly believed grievance complaining professional body, grievance which communicant, the and have been suffered to authority redress or to cor- power or body may have professional such and the author qualifiedly privileged, or rect, conditionally not be actionably publication the of for liable of communication be such express malice on or proof of actual such communication without temerity have the would persons then few author, part the of the courage grievance or present to professional body a sueli for to re- correction, subject-matter dress or no matter how meritorious the of complaint may reproachful be, and matter how and no discredit- ing body to profession of com- conduct the individual plained against by may If publication the communicant be. of such qualifiedly privileged, be communications not associations, bar medical like societies, organizations professional and of men and women, organizations become mere for or the in- social intercourse terchange of ideas. Association, organization American

The Bar as the national of comprising body practitioners various of individuals of legal profession States, meeting in at the United annual August adopted thirty-two Association held canons, professional guide professional or rules, ethics, of aas acts profession. pur- of of conduct the individual members The pose of the Preamble: “In such Canons of Ethics is thus stated America, stability departments courts of all where the of of government people, of approval peculiarly it is rests justice system establishing dispensing essential for developed high point efficiency be to of and so maintained that a public impar- integrity absolute shall have confidence great republic, to tiality of its The future of the administration. justice extent,, depends upon pure maintenance and unsullied. our of conduct motives of the It so maintained unless the and the cannot profession approval our such as merit the all are to members rule, prescribed by just canon, such Canons of The sixth or men.” lawyer the time retainer Ethics, duty reads: is the of a “It of his relations disclose all circumstances to the client controversy, parties, in or connection with the which interest unpro- counsel. might It client the selection of influence the express conflicting except by con- represent interests, fessional to With- given all a full disclosure of the facts. sent concerned after conflicting lawyer represents inter- meaning canon, of this duty contend client, one it is his when, ests behalf of obligation requires oppose. duty client which to another divulge and not his fidelity, undivided the client with represent subsequent acceptance re- confidences, forbids also secrets affecting adversely in matters employment from others tainers been re- which confidence has respect to interests of the client posed.” ethics and rules, professional While, course, canons, such enactment, legislative effect of not the force and conduct do conduct and professional express ideals

yet reflect the they do observed, to be expected recognized, generally duty which are 1239 by Comprising body legal profession, of the and the individuals the professional widely which ideals of conduct are more or less known to lay by -public in- expected by and the to be observed the public, legal profession. in- Consequently, dividual members of the those lay public, lay comprising the and those of especially dividuals public who, require of business transactions, the course or domestic services professional lawyer, duty advice of the owe a and to the legal body profession, association, of the and to the bar which is the organized representative body profession, of the of the to communi- organized such representative body profession of the cate any grievance, wrong injury, communicant, or suffered arising attorney client, from relation and bona-fide believed unprofessional the communicant to have been occasioned or lawyer. corresponding or unethical act conduct of It is the organized representa- duty of the bar association, correlative as legal enquire body profession, of the of the to examine and into tive subject-matter communication, griev- such that the order honestly which wrong injury, believes he ance, the communicant unprofessional or unethical conduct of by reason of the has suffered may be complained against, redressed or corrected. lawyer occasion of constrained view that the We are therefore Committee of the defendants’ letter to the Grievance publication of weight occasion, privileged under the Louis Bar Association was St. letter, or such juristic authority, publication qualifiedly communication, privileged. justified and war jury were is such

The evidence herein communica subject-matter of defendants’ finding that the ranted writing defendants, pub true, that the or letter tion probable to believe such cause letter, had reasonable and lishing such ag they had been subject-matter be true and that letter to and stated recited and circumstances grieved the facts because of being letter publication of such The occasion and in such letter. presumption rebut privilege said to qualifiedly privileged, subject-matter of defamatory implied from the express malice plaintiff to upon the proof was cast the burden letter, author of part on the express or actual malice prove 419; Sul Mo. Taubman, 251 1221; v. Peak C. J. letter. [36 Royal Fra v. 277; Holmes Co., 152 Mo. livan Commission v. plain proffered proof Union, No such Mo. ternal 556.] tiff. letter in defendants’ made the statements do not think that We exaggerated character unwarrantable, malicious, are of such a publication

to remove the protection from privilege. tlie

onty immoderate intemperate language used in letter, the if any, is that contained in the first sen paragraph tence or letter, namely: of the “I been have clouble-crossecl by lawyer in St. Louis and I want to state the facts to to see if anything can do for me.” The word “double-crossed” is a slang which word dowe not find to be defined in standard dic- ' English language. tionary of regard slang the We do not such word being as opprobrious more meaning malicious in than the au thor of proper the letter had English used the and more refined word ‘‘ ’’ ‘‘ ’’ deceived. slang Aside from use of double-crossed, the word the statement of facts in temperate contained the letter is couched in language. points

Plaintiff to the answer of defendant when cross- writing in purpose examined as liis letter, and wherein de- purpose fendant stated in writing bring his the letter to “to be Association, matter before Bar they so that reprimand would doing something for that was crooked his profession,” being in as proof express of part. or actual malice on One defendant’s of the bringing purposes complaint griev- in a supposed his defendant ance to the attention of the Grievance Committee of the Bar As- wrong grievance sociation was to obtain some redress he by supposed unprofessional believed he had suffered reason of the complained against, conduct the individual which redress be- reprimand would the form of from lieved take the Bar Association. “crooked,” testimony, The word as used the defendant’s does not necessarily meaning, apparent- sinister or malicious but was testimony meaning ly used witness in his sense and “irregular.” word following requested give the trial in- Defendants court jury struction: court instructs the the letter written “The grievance privileged committee and if made defendants express plaintiff in the good faith without malice towards the grounds reasonably prudent belief, based such as or sim- person would consider reasonable in same true, circumstances, ilar that said statements are plain- will plaintiff your verdict cannot recover and give plead- tiff.” Under the The court refused to such instruction. rightly de- ings requested instruction cause, and evidence in the written privileged character of the letter respecting clared law Association defendant Bar to the Grievance Committee refusing such instruction. Fuetterer, erred the trial court whether the occasion weight authority effect The is to the privileged alleged question is a defamatory letter is publication of an

1241 law to be determined the trial court the first instance. v. Fraternal 222 Royal Union, 556, 569; Wagner [Holmes Mo. v. Scott, 289, 302; Mo. Vanloon v. Vanloon, App. 255, Mo. 271.] judgment nisi affirmed, should be Lind it is so ordered.

say Ellison, CC., concur.

PER foregoing CURIAM: The opinion adopted C., is SeddoN, opinion judges All court. concur. Hollaway ex rel. Lester R. v. Thomas H. The State Knight, (2d) Justice of Peace. 21 S. W. 767. Banc,

Court en 1929. October

Case Details

Case Name: Lee v. W. E. Fuetterer Battery & Supplies Co.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Oct 14, 1929

Citation: 23 S.W.2d 45

Court Abbreviation: Mo.