THE LEGAL STATUS OF SERVANT-GLRLS. 809 



unasked displays a forward and officious zeal in giving a character 

 prejudicial to a former servant, it will be a material guide to the jury- 

 in ascertaining the real motive.* The mere fact, however, that a com- 

 munication is voluntarily made does not of necessity render it unprivi- 

 leged, and, if the publication is warranted by an occasion apparently 

 beneficial and honest, and there is no malice, it is not actionable.f If, 

 for instance, a lady who has given a servant a good character finds 

 that she was not justified in so doing, it is her right and it becomes 

 her duty to communicate the facts to the person to whom the other 

 communication was made, in order to prevent that person's being mis- 

 led by the previous recommendation, and such a communication is 

 privileged.^ So, too, if a person to whom a servant has been recom- 

 mended finds out that the character given was not justified by the ser- 

 vant's actions, and informs the lady who recommended her of the fact, 

 and cautions her against giving recommendations for morality or hon- 

 esty, this is, in the absence of malice, a privileged communication.* 

 Where a lady gives a character in response to an inquiry, she will not 

 be presumed to have been actuated by malice. | Even if what she 

 says is untrue, she can not be successfully sued, unless the servant can 

 prove that she spoke maliciously, and knew that what she said was 

 untrue and injurious. A And she need not prove the truth of her state- 

 ment unless it is plain that she was actuated by malicious motives. If 

 under such circumstances a prima facie case of falsehood be made 

 out, she will be bound to show that the assertions were made under a 

 belief in their truth. A lady once had a yoivng woman in her em- 

 ploy, who was afterward dismissed. Having a chance to make another 

 engagement, she referred to her former mistress, who wrote to the 

 person making inquiry : " I parted with her on account of her incom- 

 petency, and not being lady-like nor good-tempered. P. S. May I 

 trouble you to tell her that, this being the third time I have been re- 

 ferred to, I beg to decline any more applications ? " The result could 

 have been foreseen. The girl lost the engagement. Stung by the let- 

 ter, she sued the writer, and general evidence was given of her com- 

 petency, lady-like manners, and good temper, and that, in reply to the 

 two previous applications which were made before her dismissal, the 

 writer had recommended her. It did not appear in evidence why she 

 was dismissed. The judge told the jury that they must decide whether 

 there was sufficient proof that the defendant, in writing the letter, had 

 been influenced by some improper-feeling toward the plaintiff to make 

 a false statement knowingly. They found that there was, and the 

 plaintiff got a verdict. 



On another occasion a man was asked about the character of a 

 servant who had been in his employ, and he replied that she was dis- 

 honest. Of course, she lost the prospective engagement. She sued. 



* Starkio, 344. f Starkie, 344. % 30 N. Y., 20. * 1 F. and F., 24. 



|| Burr, 2425. A 3 Q. B., 11. Q 3 Q. B., 5 ; 109 Mass., 193. 



