much any statement which in writing would be very brusk, curt, or offensive. Even in writing one’s personal corre- spondence one may use some phrase with kindly intent and the recipient upon reading or re-reading the letter, may place an entirely different construction upon the matter. What is written, is written, and when once delivered by the mail-man is beyond recall; if it can be interpreted in more than one way, it looms up in black and white, and the unintended construction placed upon the letter may sometimes prove decidedly embarrassing to the writer. Especially is this true of the use of threats in collection letters. After a certain stage in the collection of an ac- count, the creditor is very apt to become exasperated and dictate a letter of threatening character, hoping to secure a remittance through fear. He has no intention of “threatening” the debtor but his letter stands and convicts him in its very self of having actually threatened the debtor, and making him liable under the law. Just re- cently a creditor wrote such a letter in a fit of exasperation to one of his debtors. The debtor happened to be quite friendly with an attorney and one day incidentally showed him the letter. The result was that the creditor was prosecuted and in order to have the action dropped, com- promised by giving the debtor a receipt in full. The status of certain accounts are exasperating in the extreme at times, but if one ever writes a letter in a fit of temper, it should not be mailed until the next day. When this is done, the letter will seldom be sent out until it has been materially changed. The law makers of our country have always found it a hard task to frame laws to suit both the debtor and creditor. The creditor must be protected as-
