## Facts

- George Economopoulos, a department-store customer with little or no English proficiency, was suspected by store employees of stealing a handkerchief.
- A clerk accused him in English, in substance, of having stolen a handkerchief and having it in his pocket.
- Because the plaintiff did not understand English, a Greek-speaking clerk repeated the accusation in Greek.
- The English accusation was not shown to have been spoken in the presence of any person other than the plaintiff.
- The Greek accusation was spoken with many people nearby, but there was no evidence that any bystander understood Greek.
- The plaintiff sued the store asserting, among other claims, slander based on the theft accusations.

## Issues

1. Whether a slander claim satisfies the publication element when the alleged defamatory words are spoken only to the plaintiff, with no evidence any third person heard them.
2. Whether publication exists when the words are spoken in the presence of others but in a language not shown to be understood by anyone other than the plaintiff.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the directed verdict for the defendant on the slander count.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that the statements could be understood as accusing the plaintiff of larceny.
- The court held there was no evidence of publication because:
  - the English accusation was not shown to have been heard by anyone other than the plaintiff; and
  - the Greek accusation, though spoken near others, was not shown to have been understood by any third person.
- The plaintiff’s exceptions were overruled.
- Because publication was lacking, the court did not reach other questions such as whether the clerks acted within the scope of employment.

## Legal Principles

- Slander requires publication: communication of the defamatory matter to at least one person other than the person defamed.
- Publication requires that a third person not only be present but hear and understand the allegedly defamatory words.
- Words spoken only to the plaintiff, or spoken in a language not understood by any bystander, do not satisfy publication.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that slander was not proved because the record lacked evidence that any third person heard and understood the theft accusations, making the directed verdict for the store proper on the publication element alone.


Economopoulos v. A.G. Pollard Co., 218 Mass. 294, 105 N.E. 896 (Mass. 1914)