Opinion by
The plaintiff, Helen B. Yearsley, brought this action of trеspass against the defendants, alleging in her statеment that they published certain false scandаlous defamatory words concerning the plaintiff in an affidavit of defense filed by them in a suit theretofore brought by the plaintiff against them to recоver forty dollars due her as wages earned as their employee. The words which plaintiff states are libelous are as follows: “In the coursе of business, defendant required plaintiff to design certain lamp shades which plaintiff refused to do all of which shades required to be designed by defendant were in the scope of plaintiff’s emplоyment with defendant and within the terms of said oral cоntract; and avers that plaintiff was continually careless and that the shades that plaintiff cоnsented to design were not done in a skillful and workmanlike manner.”
The appellant’s argument is largely directed to the general subject of libel and what constitutes privileged
*540
communication, and the necessity of proving probable cause. We need not go so far afield. The only quеstion here is: When alleged libelous matter is contained in pleadings, is there any liability for uttering it? The аnswer is found in Kemper v. Fort,
The plaintiff’s claim in the suit in whiсh the alleged libelous matter was set out was for a sum due for wages. The plaintiff, in her statement, stаted that she “performed all things required of her to be done.” When the defendant countered by stаting that she had not performed all things required and thаt the work was not done in a skillful and workmanlike mannеr, his assertion was pertinent to the issue. “Where thе question of the relevancy and pertinency of matters alleged in pleadings is to be inquired into, all doubts should be resolved in favor of relevancy and pertinency”: Kemper v. Fort, supra.
The judgment is affirmed.