43

ticular occasion, which is the subject of injury. (67) Where char-
acter as distinguished from reputation is the subject of investiga-
tion, specific acts tend to exhibit and bring to light the peculiar
qualities of the man, and indicate his adaptation, or want of adapta-
tion to any position, or fitness or unfitness for a particular duty or
trust. It is by many, or by a series of acts that individuals ac-
quire a general reputation, and by which their characters are known
and described, and the actual qualities, the true characteristics
of individuals, those qualities and characteristics which would and
should influence and control in the selection of agents for positions
i}i trust and responsibility, are learned and known. A principal
would be without excuse should he employ for a responsible position,
on the proper perfoiynance of the duties of which the lives of others
might depend, one known to him as having the reputation of being
an intemperate, imprudent, indolent or careless man. He would
be held liable to the fellow-servants of the employe for any injury
resulting from the deficiencies and defects imputed to the indi-
vidual by public opinion and general report. Still more should he
be chargeable if he had knowledge of specific acts showing that
he possessed characteristics incompatible with the duties assigned
to him and which might expose his fellow-servants and others to
peril and harm. Frazier v. Pennsylvania K. (68), is adverse to these
views. It is safe to say that this decision has not been received
with approval by the profession."

In the case of Pittsburg R. v. Ruby (69), the Frazier case was
severely criticised. The effect of the ruling in that case was de-
clared to be that a railroad corporation could not be charged with
notice of the incompetency of one of its employes, by proof of
special instance of want of care, skill and capacity, although all
the acts were well known to the directors, president and superin-
tendent, and that the only mode in which such proof could be made
was by proof of general character. "This case stands alone," says
the court, "unsustained and unsupported, so far as we have been
able to discover, by any elementary work or decision. Nor can the
decision be sustained by reason or on principle. 