Chapter LXXVII: Section 3: of this statute is as follows (5)

V. Words imputing a criminal offence subjecting the offender to
infamous punishment. Shipp _v._ McCraw, 3 Murph. 463; Brady _v._
Wilson, 4 Hawks. 93; Skinner _v._ White, 1 Dev. & Bat. 471; Wall _v._
Hoskins, 5 Ired. 177; Wilson _v._ Tatum, 8 Jones, (N. C.) 300; McKee
_v._ Wilson, 87 N. C. 300; Harris _v._ Terry, 98 N. C. 131.

VI. Words imputing an _indictable_ offence involving moral turpitude,
or subjecting the offender to an infamous punishment. See Brooker _v._
Coffin, _infra_, and cases cited.

VII. Words imputing an _indictable_ offence punishable corporally.
Griffin _v._ Moore, 43 Md. 246; Shafer _v._ Ahalt, 48 Md. 171; Birch
_v._ Benton, 26 Mo. 153; Curry _v._ Collins, 37 Mo. 324; Bundy _v._
Hart, 46 Mo. 460; Lewis _v._ McDaniel, 82 Mo. 577; Houston _v._
Woolley, 37 Mo. App. 15, 24; Parsons _v._ Henry, 177 Mo. App. 329.

_As to defamation of a corporation_, see Oram _v._ Hutt, [1913] 1 Ch.
259; Axton Tobacco Co. _v._ Evening Post Co., 169 Ky. 64; Stone _v._
Textile Employers Ass’n, 137 App. Div. 655.

Footnote 437:

Only the opinion of the court is given.

Footnote 438:

By 54 & 55 Vict. c. 51, words which impute unchastity or adultery to
any woman or girl are actionable, without special damage.

Footnote 439:

This rule has been approved in the following cases: Pollard _v._ Lyon,
91 U. S. 225; Perdue _v._ Burnett, Minor, 138; Dudley _v._ Horn, 21
Ala. 379; Hillhouse _v._ Peck, 2 St. & P. 395; Heath _v._ Devaughn, 37
Ala. 677; Kinney _v._ Hosea, 3 Harring, 77; Pleasanton _v._
Kronemeier, 29 Del. 81; Pledger _v._ Hathcock, 1 Ga. 550; Giddens _v._
Mirk, 4 Ga. 364; Richardson _v._ Roberts, 23 Ga. 215; Burton _v._
Burton, 3 Greene, 316; Halley _v._ Gregg, 74 Ia. 563; Wooten _v._
Martin, 140 Ky. 781; St. Martin _v._ Desnoyer, 1 Minn. 156; West _v._
Hanrahan, 28 Minn. 385; Chaplin _v._ Lee, 18 Neb. 440; Hendrickson
_v._ Sullivan, 28 Neb. 329; McCuen _v._ Ludlum, 2 Harr. 12; Johnson
_v._ Shields, 25 N. J. Law, 116; Widrig _v._ Oyer, 13 Johns. 124;
Martin _v._ Stilwell, 13 Johns. 275; Alexander _v._ Alexander, 9 Wend.
141; Case _v._ Buckley, 15 Wend. 327; Bissell _v._ Cornell, 24 Wend.
354; Demarest _v._ Haring, 6 Cow. 76; Young _v._ Miller, 3 Hill, 21;
Wright _v._ Paige, 3 Keyes, 581, 3 Trans. App. 134, S. C.; Crawford
_v._ Wilson, 4 Barb. 504; Johnson _v._ Brown, 57 Barb. 118; Quinn _v._
O’Gara, 2 E. D. Sm. 388; Torres _v._ Huner, 150 App. Div. 798; Dial
_v._ Holter, 6 Ohio St. 228; Alfele _v._ Wright, 17 Ohio St. 238;
Hollingsworth _v._ Shaw, 19 Ohio St. 430; Davis _v._ Brown, 27 Ohio
St. 326; Davis _v._ Sladden, 17 Or. 259; Andres _v._ Koppenheafer, 3
S. & R. 255; Davis _v._ Carey, 141 Pa. St. 314; Lodge _v._ O’Toole, 20
R. I. 405; Gage _v._ Shelton, 3 Rich. 242; Smith _v._ Brown, 97 S. C.
239; Smith _v._ Smith, 2 Sneed, 473; McAnally _v._ Williams, 3 Sneed,
26; Poe _v._ Grever, 3 Sneed, 664; Payne _v._ Tancil, 98 Va. 262. See
Moore _v._ Francis, 121 N. Y. 199.

Footnote 440:

Hence it is not actionable (without special damage) to call a man a
“bastard,” Paysse _v._ Paysse, 86 Wash. 349, or a “blackleg and
swindler,” McIntyre _v._ Fruchter, 148 N. Y. Supp. 786; or a “rascal,”
Massee _v._ Williams, 207 Mass. 222, or to call a woman a “bitch.”
Craver _v._ Norton, 114 Ia. 46; Sturdivant _v._ Duke, 155 Ky. 100;
Kerone _v._ Block, 144 Mo. App. 575; Blake _v._ Smith, 19 R. I. 476.

But in Fowler _v._ Dowdney, 2 Moody & R. 119, the words “he is a
returned convict” were held actionable, Lord Denman, C. J., saving
that though the punishment had been suffered, “still the obloquy
remains.” Gainford _v._ Tuke, Cro. Jac. 536; Boston _v._ Tatam, Cro.
Jac. 623; Beavor _v._ Hides, 2 Wils. 300; Stewart _v._ Howe, 17 Ill.
71; Wiley _v._ Campbell, 5 T. B. Monr. 396; Krebs _v._ Oliver, 12
Gray, 239; Johnson _v._ Dicken, 25 Mo. 580; Van Ankin _v._ Westfall,
14 Johns. 233; Ship _v._ McCraw, 3 Murphy, 463; Smith _v._ Stewart, 5
Pa. St. 372; Beck _v._ Stitzel, 21 Pa. St. 522; Poe _v._ Grever, 3
Sneed, (Tenn.) 664 _Accord_.

Compare Carpenter _v._ Tarrant, C. t. Hardw. 339; French _v._ Creath,
Breese, 12; Barclay _v._ Thompson, 2 Pen. & W. 148.

Footnote 441:

Only portions of the opinion are given.

Footnote 442:

See also Keck _v._ Shepard, (Ark.) 180 S. W. 501 (statutory); Craver
_v._ Norton, 114 Ia. 46; Hahn _v._ Lumpa, 158 Ia. 560; Traylor _v._
White, 185 Mo. App. 325 (statutory); Culver _v._ Marx, 157 Wis. 320.
On the whole subject, see Veeder, History and Theory of the Law of
Defamation, 4 Columbia Law Rev. 33, 52.

Footnote 443:

Only the opinion of the court is given.

Footnote 444:

“We think that the rule as to words spoken of a man in his office or
trade is not necessarily confined to offices and trades of the nature
and duties of which the court can take judicial notice. The only
limitation of which we are aware is, that it does not apply to illegal
callings.” Channel, B., in Foulger _v._ Newcomb, L. R. 2 Ex. 327, 330.

Footnote 445:

Alexander _v._ Angle, 1 Cr. & J. 143; Sibley _v._ Tomlins, 4 Tyrwh.
90; Doyley _v._ Roberts, 3 B. N. C. 835; Brayne _v._ Cooper, 5 M. & W.
249; James _v._ Brook, 9 Q. B. 7; Dauncey _v._ Holloway, [1901] 2 K.
B. 441; Hogg _v._ Dorrah, 2 Porter, (Ala.) 212; Oram _v._ Franklin, 5
Blackf. 42; Buck _v._ Hersey, 31 Me. 558; Oakley _v._ Farrington, 1
Johns. Cas. 129; Van Tassel _v._ Capron, 1 Den. 250; Ireland _v._
McGarvish, 1 Sandf. 155; Chomley _v._ Watson, [1907] Vict. L. R. 502
_Accord_.

Compare Ware _v._ Clowney, 24 Ala. 707; Butler _v._ Howes, 7 Cal. 87;
Fowles _v._ Bowen, 30 N. Y. 20.

“Some of the cases have proceeded to a length which can hardly fail to
excite surprise: a clergyman having failed to obtain redress for the
imputation of adultery; and a school-mistress having been declared
incompetent to maintain an action for a charge of prostitution. Such
words were undeniably calculated to injure the success of the
plaintiffs in their several professions, but, not being applicable to
their conduct therein, no action lay.” Lord Denman, C. J., in Ayre
_v._ Craven, 2 A. & E. 2. See Morasse _v._ Brooks, 151 Mass. 567, 568.

_Imputation of misconduct to a clergyman_, see Bishop of Norwich _v._
Pricket, Cro. Eliz. 1 (heterodoxy in religion); Payne _v._ Bewmorris,
1 Lev. 248 (incontinence); Pope _v._ Ramsey, 1 Keb. 542 (knave, &c.);
Chaddock _v._ Briggs, 13 Mass. 248 (drunkenness); Ritchie _v._
Widdemer, 59 N. J. Law, 290; Demarest _v._ Haring, 6 Cow. 76
(incontinence); Potter _v._ N. Y. Journal, 68 App. Div. 95; Hayner
_v._ Cowden, 27 Ohio St. 292 (drunkenness); McMillan _v._ Birch, 1
Binney, 178 (drunkenness); Starr _v._ Gardner, 6 Up. Can. Q. B. O. S.
512 (incontinence; but see, _contra_, Breeze _v._ Sails, 23 Up. Can.
Q. B. 94, incontinence), holding the words actionable.

Parrat _v._ Carpenter, Cro. El. 502; Nicholson _v._ Lyne, Cro. El. 94;
Anon., Sty. 49 _Contra_. Compare Gallwey _v._ Marshall, 9 Ex. 294,
568.

_Imputation to teacher of discreditable conduct with pupils._ Spears
_v._ McCoy, 155 Ky. 1. Compare Nicholson _v._ Dillard, 137 Ga. 225.

_Imputation to an officer of drunkenness while on duty._ Reilly _v._
Curtis, 83 N. J. Law, 77.

Footnote 446:

Kempe’s Case, Dy. 72, pl. 6; Stanton _v._ Smith, 2 Ld. Ray. 1480;
Brown _v._ Smith, 13 C. B. 596; Pacific Packing Co. _v._ Bradstreet,
25 Idaho, 696; Simons _v._ Burnham, 102 Mich. 189; Traynor _v._
Sielaff, 62 Minn. 420; Hynds _v._ Fourteenth Street Store, 159 App.
Div. 766; Davis _v._ Ruff, Cheeves, 17 _Accord_.

Barnes _v._ Trundy, 31 Me. 321; Redway _v._ Gray, 31 Vt. 292 _Contra_.

See Bell _v._ Thatcher, Freem. 276; Bryant _v._ Loxton, 11 Moore, 344;
Marino _v._ Di Marco, 41 App. D. C. 76 (“sells rotten goods”); Taylor
_v._ Church, 1 E. D. Smith, 287; Fowles _v._ Bowen, 30 N. Y. 20;
Bilgrien _v._ Ulrich, 150 Wis. 532 (habitual cheating).

Footnote 447:

Sumner _v._ Utley, 7 Conn. 257; Garr _v._ Selden, 6 Barb. 416; Rodgers
_v._ Kline, 56 Miss. 808; Lynde _v._ Johnson, 39 Hun. 5 _Accord_.

Footnote 448:

Johnson _v._ Robertson, 8 Port. (Ala.) 486; Sumner _v._ Utley, 7 Conn.
257; Lovejoy _v._ Whitcomb, 174 Mass. 586; Freisinger _v._ Moore, 65
N. J. Law, 286; Mattice _v._ Wilcox, 147 N. Y. 624; Krug _v._ Pitass,
162 N. Y. 154, 163 N. Y. 600; Lynde _v._ Johnson, 39 Hun, 12;
Hollingsworth _v._ Spectator Co., 49 App. Div. 16; McIntyre _v._
Weinert, 195 Pa. St. 52; Holland _v._ Flick, 212 Pa. St. 201; Gauvreau
_v._ Superior Co., 62 Wis. 403 _Accord_. See Watson _v._ Vanderlash,
Hetl. 69; Edsall _v._ Russell, 4 M. & Gr. 1090. Compare Twiggar _v._
Ossining Printing Co., 161 App. Div. 718; Larsen _v._ Brooklyn Eagle,
165 App. Div. 4.

Foot _v._ Brown, 8 Johns. 64 _Contra_. See Camp _v._ Martin, 23 Conn.
86; Pratt _v._ Pioneer Co., 35 Minn. 251.

The imputation of misconduct in an office of honor but not of profit
is actionable _per se_, Booth _v._ Arnold, [1895] 1 Q. B. 571;
Livingston _v._ McCartin, [1907] Vict. L. R. 48. But the rule is
otherwise, according to Alexander _v._ Jenkins, [1892] 1 Q. B. 797, as
to the imputation of unfitness for such an office.

Footnote 449:

Brook _v._ Wife, Cro. El. 878; Davis _v._ Taylor, Cro. El. 648;
Garford _v._ Clerk, Cro. El. 857; Miller’s Case, Cro. Jac. 430;
Crittal _v._ Horner, Hob. 219 _b_; Elyott _v._ Blague, Sty. 283;
Marshall _v._ Chickall, 1 Sid. 50; Comming’s Case, 2 Sid. 5; Lymbe
_v._ Hockly, 1 Lev. 205; Grimes _v._ Lovel, 12 Mod. 242; Clifton _v._
Wells, 12 Mod. 634; Whitfield _v._ Powel, 12 Mod. 248; Bloodworth _v._
Gray, 7 M. & G. 334; Watson _v._ McCarthy, 2 Ga. 57; Nichols _v._ Guy,
2 Ind. 82; McDonald _v._ Nugent, 122 Ia. 651; Meteye _v._ Times Co.,
47 La. Ann. 824; Golderman _v._ Stearns, 7 Gray, 181; Williams _v._
Holdredge, 22 Barb. 396; Hewitt _v._ Mason, 24 How. Pr. 366; Upton
_v._ Upton, 51 Hun, 184; Simpson _v._ Press Co., 33 Misc. 228; Kaucher
_v._ Blinn, 29 Ohio St. 62; Irons _v._ Field, 9 R. I. 216 _Accord_.

Bury _v._ Chappel, Golds. 135; James _v._ Rutlech, 4 Rep. 17 _a_; Hunt
_v._ Jones, Cro. Jac. 499; Califord _v._ Knight, Cro. Jac. 514
_Contra_.

In Taylor _v._ Hall, 2 Strange, 1189, it was held not actionable to
say that plaintiff had had the pox. Smith’s Case, Noy, 151; Dutton
_v._ Eaton, Al. 30; Carslake _v._ Mapledoram, 2 T. R. 473; Nichols
_v._ Guy, 2 Ind. 82; Pike _v._ Van Wormer, 5 How. Pr. 171; Irons _v._
Field, 9 R. I. 216 _Accord_. Austin _v._ White, Cro. El. 214; Anon.
Ow. 34; Hobson _v._ Hudson, Sty. 199, 219 _Contra_.

Footnote 450:

Only the opinion of the court is given.

Footnote 451:

But see Fitzgerald _v._ Young, 89 Neb. 693 (imputation of insanity to
a teacher).

Footnote 452:

Only the opinion of the court upon this point is given.

Footnote 453:

Lucas _v._ Cotton, Moore, 79; Underwood _v._ Parks, 2 Stra. 1200;
Ellis _v._ Buzzell, 60 Me. 209; Baum _v._ Clause, 5 Hill, 196
_Accord_.

The rule is the same as to actions for a libel. Leyman _v._ Latimer, 3
Ex. D. 15, 352; Grand Union Tea Co. _v._ Lorch, (C. C. A.) 231 Fed.
390; Schuler _v._ Fischer, 167 Ala. 184; Children _v._ Shinn, 168 Ia.
531; Castle _v._ Hunston, 19 Kan. 417; Hanson _v._ Bristow, 87 Kan.
72; Herald Pub. Co. _v._ Feltner, 158 Ky. 35; Cook _v._ Pulitzer Pub.
Co., 241 Mo. 326; Merrey _v._ Guardian Pub. Co., 79 N. J. Law, 177;
Willetts _v._ Scudder, 72 Or. 535. Unless modified by statute, as in
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York,
Rhode Island and West Virginia. Delaware Co. _v._ Croasdale, 6 Houst.
181; Jones _v._ Townsend, 21 Fla. 431; Palmer _v._ Adams, 137 Ind. 72;
Perry _v._ Porter, 124 Mass. 338; Fordyce _v._ Richmond, 78 Neb. 752;
McClaugherty _v._ Cooper, 39 W. Va. 313. In New Hampshire and
Pennsylvania, however, the mere truth of the libel is not always a
defence, although there is no such statute. Hutchins _v._ Page, 75 N.
H. 215; Burkhart _v._ N. Am. Co., 214 Pa. St. 39.

Footnote 454:

The statement of the pleadings is abridged; the arguments of counsel
and the concurring opinions of Martin, Channell, and Bramwell, BB.,
are omitted.

Footnote 455:

Rex _v._ Skinner, Lofft, 55; Thomas _v._ Churton, 2 B. & S. 475;
Dawkins _v._ Paulet, L. R. 5 Q. B. 94; Dawkins _v._ Prince Edward, 1
Q. B. D. 499; Law _v._ Llewellyn, [1906] 1 K. B. 487 (judge of
inferior court—Scotch case Allardice _v._ Robertson, 1 Dow & Cl. 495
not followed); Bottomley _v._ Brougham, [1908] 1 K. B. 584 (official
receiver); Miller _v._ Hope, 2 Shaw, App. Cas. 125; Yates _v._
Lansing, 5 Johns. 282, 9 Johns. 395 (but see Aylesworth _v._ St. John,
25 Hun, 156); Allen _v._ Earnest, (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 1101
_Accord_.

Kendillon _v._ Maltby, Car. & M. 402, 2 M. & Rob. 438, S. C., lays
down too restricted a rule.

“The publication of defamatory words may be under an absolute or under
a qualified or conditional privilege. Under the former there is no
liability, although the defamatory words are falsely and maliciously
published. The class of absolutely privileged communications is narrow
and practically limited to legislative and judicial proceedings and
acts of state.” Hall, C. J., in Hassett _v._ Carroll, 85 Conn. 23, 35.

See Tanner _v._ Stevenson, 138 Ky. 578; Peterson _v._ Steenerson, 113
Minn. 87.

Footnote 456:

Only the opinion of Brett, M. R., is given.

Footnote 457:

Pedley _v._ Morris, 61 L. J. Q. B. 21 _Accord_.

See Buckley _v._ Wood, 4 Rep. 14 _b_; Hodgson _v._ Scarlett, 1 B. &
Ald. 232; Mackay _v._ Ford, 5 H. & N. 792; Smallwood _v._ York, 163
Ky. 139; Rudin _v._ Fauver, 33 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 315; Kruegel _v._
Cockrell (Tex. Ci _v._ App.) 151 S. W. 352.

“We cannot accept the absolute and unqualified privilege laid down in
Munster _v._ Lamb.... We cannot agree with Brett, M. R., that in a
suit against counsel for slander the only inquiry is whether the words
were spoken in a judicial proceeding, and if so, the case must be
stopped. We quite agree however, with Bramwell, J. A., in Seaman _v._
Netherclift, that ‘relevant’ and ‘pertinent’ are not the best words
that could be used. These words have in a measure a technical meaning,
and we all know the difficulty in determining in some cases what is
relevant or pertinent. With Lord Chancellor Cairns we prefer the words
‘having reference’ or ‘made with reference,’ or in the language of
Shaw, C. J., ‘having relation to the cause or subject-matter.’ And if
counsel in the trial of a cause maliciously slanders a party, or
witness or any other person in regard to a matter that has no
reference or relation to, or connection with, the case before the
Court, he is and ought to be answerable in an action by the party
injured. This qualification of his privilege in no manner impairs the
freedom of discussion so necessary to the proper administration of the
law, nor does it subject counsel to actions for slander except in
cases in which upon reason and sound public policy he ought to be held
answerable. We cannot agree that for the abuse of his privilege he is
amenable only to the authority of the Court. Mere punishment by the
Court is no recompense to one who has thus been maliciously and
wantonly slandered.” Robinson, J., in Maulsby _v._ Reifsnider, 69 Md.
143, 162. La Porta _v._ Leonard, 88 N. J. Law, 663; Andrews _v._
Gardiner, 165 App. Div. 595 _Accord_.

_Defamatory statements in brief of counsel._ Brooks _v._ Bank of
Acadia, 138 La. 657.

_Pleadings._ Nalle _v._ Oyster, 230 U. S. 165; Carpenter _v._ Grimes
Min. Co., 19 Idaho, 384; Hess _v._ McKee, 150 Ia. 409; Lebovitch _v._
Levy, 128 La. 518; Flynn _v._ Boglarsky, 164 Mich. 513; Rosenberg _v._
Dworetsky, 139 App. Div. 517; Harris _v._ Santa Fé Townsite Co., (Tex.
Civ. App.) 125 S. W. 77.

In England, statements in a pleading are absolutely privileged, though
not relevant. Hodson _v._ Pare, [1899] 1 Q. B. 455.

In the United States, statements in a pleading not pertinent to the
action are not privileged. Union Ins. Co. _v._ Thomas, 83 Fed. 803;
King _v._ McKissick, 126 Fed. 215; Potter _v._ Troy, 175 Fed. 128;
Myers _v._ Hodges, 53 Fla. 197; Gaines _v._ Aetna Ins. Co., 104 Ky.
695; Jones _v._ Brownlee, 161 Mo. 258; Gilbert _v._ People, 1 Denio,
41; Kemper _v._ Fort, 219 Pa. St. 85; Crockett _v._ McLanahan, 109
Tenn. 517; Miller _v._ Gust, 71 Wash. 139.

_Charges in disbarment proceedings_, see Preusser _v._ Faulhaber, 33
Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 312.

_Statements in a petition for pardon._ Connollee _v._ Blanton, (Tex.
Ci _v._ App.) 163 S. W. 404 (held absolutely privileged).

_Statement by defendant on trial for crime._ Nelson _v._ Davis, 9 Ga.
App. 131.

In Louisiana the statements of parties in judicial proceedings are not
absolutely privileged. Lescale _v._ Joseph Schwartz Co., 116 La. 293,
118 La. 718; Dunn _v._ Southern Co., 116 La. 431.

Footnote 458:

The arguments and the opinion of Amphlett, J. A., are omitted.

Footnote 459:

Revis _v._ Smith, 18 C. B. 126; Henderson _v._ Broomhead, 4 H. & N.
569; Dawkins v. Rokeby, L. R. 7 H. L. 744, L. R. 8 Q. B. 255 (military
court of inquiry); Goffin _v._ Donnelly, 6 Q. B. D. 307 (select
committee of House of Commons); Gompas _v._ White, 6 T. L. R. 20;
Watson _v._ Jones, [1905] A. C. 480 (privilege extends to statement to
client and solicitor in preparation of case for trial); Terry _v._
Fellows, 21 La. Ann. 375; Hunckle _v._ Voneiff, 69 Md. 173; Dodge _v._
Gilman, 122 Minn. 177; Runge _v._ Franklin, 72 Tex. 585; Kennedy _v._
Hilliard, 10 Ir. C. L. R. 195 _Accord_. But the English courts do not
extend the doctrine to hearings before an administrative board. Atwood
_v._ Chapman, 111 L. T. 726.

See also Hutchinson _v._ Lewis, 75 Ind. 55; Liles _v._ Gaster, 42 Ohio
St. 631.

In Dawkins _v._ Lord Rokeby, _supra_, Lord Penzance said: “It is said
that a statement of fact of a libellous nature which is palpably
untrue—known to be untrue by him who made it, and dictated by
malice—ought to be the subject of a civil remedy, though made in the
course of a purely military inquiry. This mode of stating the question
assumes the untruth and assumes the malice. If by any process of
demonstration, free from the defects of human judgment, the untruth
and malice could be set above and beyond all question or doubt, there
might be ground for contending that the law of the land should give
damages to the injured man.

“But this is not the state of things under which this question of law
has to be determined. Whether the statements were, in fact, untrue,
and whether they were dictated by malice, are, and always will be,
open questions, upon which opinions may differ, and which can only be
resolved by the exercise of human judgment. And the real question is,
whether it is proper on grounds of public policy to remit such
questions to the judgment of a jury. The reasons against doing so are
simple and obvious. A witness may be utterly free from malice, and may
yet in the eyes of a jury be open to that imputation; or, again, the
witness may be cleared by the jury of the imputation, and may yet have
to encounter the expenses and distress of a harassing litigation. With
such possibilities hanging over his head, a witness cannot be expected
to speak with that free and open mind which the administration of
justice demands.

“These considerations have long since led to the legal doctrine that a
witness in the courts of law is free from any action; and I fail to
perceive any reason why the same considerations should not be applied
to an inquiry such as the present, and with the same result.”

Footnote 460:

The statement, arguments of counsel and parts of the opinion are
omitted.

Footnote 461:

“White _v._ Carroll, rightly understood, is in harmony with the other
cases. The case shows that the court held that the answer given to the
question put to the defendant as a witness before the surrogate was
not material and pertinent to the inquiry; and further held it was
privileged if the defendant, when he gave it, in good faith believed
that it was; and whether he so believed, was a question of fact to be
determined by the jury. Had the evidence proved that the answer was
material and pertinent, the court must have held it privileged,
irrespective of the defendant’s belief upon the subject.” Grover, J.,
in Marsh _v._ Ellsworth, 50 N. Y. 309, 313.

“It seems to be settled by the English authorities that judges,
counsel, parties, and witnesses are absolutely exempted from liability
to an action for defamatory words published in the course of judicial
proceedings; and that the same doctrine is generally held in the
American courts, with the qualification, as to parties, counsel, and
witnesses, that their statements made in the course of an action must
be pertinent and material to the case.” Lord, J., in McLaughlin _v._
Cowley, 127 Mass. 316, 319.

“The examination of witnesses is regulated by the tribunal before
which they testify, and if witnesses answer pertinently questions
asked them by counsel which are not excluded by the tribunal, or
answer pertinently questions asked them by the tribunal, they ought to
be absolutely protected. It is not the duty of a witness to decide for
himself whether the questions asked him under the direction of the
tribunal are relevant. As the witness is sworn to tell the whole truth
relating to the matter concerning which his testimony is taken, he
ought also to be absolutely protected in testifying to any matter
which is relevant to the inquiry, or which he reasonably believes to
be relevant to it. But a witness ought not to be permitted with
impunity to volunteer defamatory statements which are irrelevant to
the matter of inquiry, and which he does not believe to be relevant.
This statement of the law we think, is supported by the decisions in
this Commonwealth. The English decisions, perhaps, go somewhat further
than this in favor of a witness; certainly they apply the rule
liberally for his protection.” Field, J., in Wright _v._ Lothrop, 149
Mass. 385, 389.

The principal case and the preceding extracts in this note represent
the views of the American courts in general.

King _v._ McKissick, 126 Fed. 215; Lawson _v._ Hicks, 38 Ala. 279;
Wyatt _v._ Buell, 47 Cal. 624; Hollis _v._ Meux, 69 Cal. 625; People
_v._ Green, 9 Col. 506; Lester _v._ Thurmond, 51 Ga. 118; Buschbaum
_v._ Heriot, 5 Ga. App. 521; Spaids _v._ Barrett, 57 Ill. 289; Fagan
_v._ Fries, 30 Ill. App. 236; Smith _v._ Howard, 28 Ia. 51; Hawk _v._
Evans, 76 Ia. 593; Forbes _v._ Johnson, 11 B. Mon. 48; Morgan _v._
Booth, 13 Bush, 480; Stewart _v._ Hall, 83 Ky. 375; Sebree _v._
Thompson, 126 Ky. 223; Kelly _v._ Lafitte, 28 La. Ann. 435; Gardemal
_v._ McWilliams, 43 La. Ann. 454; Barnes _v._ McCrate, 32 Me. 442;
Hoar _v._ Wood, 3 Met. 193; Kidder _v._ Parkhurst, 3 All. 393;
McLaughlin _v._ Cowley, 127 Mass. 316; Wright _v._ Lothrop, 149 Mass.
385; Wheaton _v._ Beecher, 49 Mich. 348; Acre _v._ Starkweather, 118
Mich. 214; Hastings _v._ Lusk, 22 Wend. 410; Ring _v._ Wheeler, 7 Cow.
725; Garr _v._ Selden, 4 N. Y. 91; Marsh _v._ Ellsworth, 50 N. Y. 309;
Moore _v._ Manufacturers’ Bank, 123 N. Y. 420, 136 N. Y. 666; Newfield
_v._ Copperman, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 360; Perkins _v._ Mitchell, 31 Barb.
461; Dada _v._ Piper, 41 Hun, 254; McLaughlin _v._ Charles, 60 Hun,
239; Beggs _v._ McCrea, 62 App. Div. 39 (_semble_); Suydam _v._
Moffat, 1 Sandf. 459; Perzel _v._ Tousey, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 79;
Cooper _v._ Phipps, 24 Or. 357; Shadden _v._ McElwee, 86 Tenn. 146;
Mower _v._ Watson, 11 Vt. 536; Dunham _v._ Powers, 42 Vt. 1; Johnson
_v._ Brown, 13 W. Va. 71; Jennings _v._ Paine, 4 Wis. 358; Calkins
_v._ Sumner, 13 Wis. 193; Larkin _v._ Noonan, 19 Wis. 82.

_Statements volunteered by witness._ Viss _v._ Calligan, 91 Wash. 673.

_Statements in affidavit._ Perry _v._ Perry, 153 N. C. 266; Baggett
_v._ Grady, 154 N. C. 342; Keeley _v._ Great Northern R. Co., 156 Wis.
181. But see Ritschy _v._ Garrels, 195 Mo. App. 670.

_Affidavit in legislative investigation._ Tuohy _v._ Hassell, 35 Okl.
61.

_Defamatory statements at creditors’ meeting._ Smith _v._ Agee, 178
Ala. 627.

_Statements in notice of foreclosure sale._ Tierney _v._ Ruppert, 150
App. Div. 863.

_Report of grand jury without indictment._ Rich _v._ Eason, (Tex. Civ.
App.) 180 S. W. 303.

_Statement of guardian as to person making claim against ward’s
estate._ Marney _v._ Joseph, 94 Kan. 18.

_Letter from one attorney to another_, not confined to the matters in
litigation. Savage _v._ Stover, 86 N. J. Law, 478.

_Message of a mayor._ A communication from the mayor of a city to the
common council is absolutely privileged. Trebilcock _v._ Anderson, 117
Mich. 39.

_Official statements of officers of state_ are absolutely privileged.
Chatterton _v._ Secretary of State, [1895] 2 Q. B. 189; Spalding _v._
Vilas, 161 U. S. 483.

_Statements of administrative officers._ Farr _v._ Valentine, 38 App.
D. C. 413; Haskell v. Perkins, 165 Ill. App. 144; Tanner _v._
Stevenson, 138 Ky. 578; Peterson v. Steenerson, 113 Minn. 87; Johnson
_v._ Marsh, 82 N. J. Law, 4 (notice not to sell liquor to alleged
drunkard); Bingham _v._ Gaynor, 203 N. Y. 27.

Footnote 462:

It is well settled that no action is allowed against a witness for
damage caused by his perjury. Damport _v._ Sympson, Cro. El. 520, Ow.
158, 2 And. 47, s. c.; Eyres _v._ Sedgewicke, Cro. Jac. 601; Yelv.
142, 2 Roll. R. 197, S. C.; Wimberly _v._ Thompson, Noy, 6; Harding
_v._ Bodman, Hutt. 11; Coxe _v._ Smithe, 1 Lev. 119; Taylor _v._
Bidwell, 65 Cal. 489; Bostwick _v._ Lewis, 2 Day, 447; Grove _v._
Brandenburg, 7 Blackf. 239; Dunlap _v._ Glidden, 31 Me. 435; Severance
_v._ Judkins, 73 Me. 376, 379; Garing _v._ Fraser, 76 Me. 37; Phelps
_v._ Stearns, 4 Gray, 105; Curtis _v._ Fairbanks, 16 N. H. 542; Smith
_v._ Lewis, 3 Johns. 157; Cunningham _v._ Brown, 18 Vt. 123.

See Bell _v._ Senneff, 83 Ill. 122. Compare Schaub _v._ O’Ferrell, 116
Md. 131.

Footnote 463:

See also Taylor _v._ Bidwell, 65 Cal. 489; Curtis _v._ Fairbanks, 16
N. H. 542; Stevens _v._ Rowe, 59 N. H. 578.

Footnote 464:

A part of the opinion relating to points of pleading is omitted.

Footnote 465:

The arguments and the concurring opinions of Martin and Channell, BB.,
are omitted.

Footnote 466:

Risk Allah Bey _v._ Whitehurst, 18 L. T. Rep. 615; Hope _v._ Leng, 23
T. L. R. 243; Furniss _v._ Cambridge News, 23 T. L. R. 705; Todd _v._
Every Evening Co., (Del.) 62 Atl. 1089 (_semble_); Blodgett _v._ Des
Moines Co., (Ia.) 113 N. W. 821; Billet _v._ Publishing Co., 107 La.
751 (_semble_); McBee _v._ Fulton, 47 Md. 403; Cowley _v._ Pulsifer,
137 Mass. 392; Conner _v._ Standard Co., 183 Mass. 474; Nixon _v._
Dispatch Co., 101 Minn. 309; Hawkins _v._ Globe Co., 10 Mo. App. 174;
Boogher _v._ Knapp, 97 Mo. 122; Brown _v._ Knapp, 213 Mo. 655
(_semble_); Brown _v._ Globe Co., 213 Mo. 611; Thompson _v._ Powning,
15 Nev. 195; Edsall _v._ Brooks, 17 Abb. Pr. 221; N. Y. Code Civ.
Proc., § 1907; Ackerman _v._ Jones, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 42; Salisbury
_v._ Union Co., 45 Hun, 120; Hart _v._ Sun Co., 79 Hun, 358;
Cincinnati Co. _v._ Timberlake, 10 Ohio St. 548; Metcalf _v._ Times
Co., 20 R. I. 674; Saunders _v._ Baxter, 6 Heisk. 369; American Co.
_v._ Gamble, 115 Tenn. 663; People _v._ Glassman, 12 Utah, 238
_Accord_.

So publication of copies from the register of judgments is privileged.
Searles _v._ Scarlett, [1892] 2 Q. B. 56.

Publication of papers filed in the clerk’s office, but not produced in
open court, is not privileged. Meeker _v._ Post Pub. Co., 45 Col. 355;
Cowley _v._ Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392; Lundin _v._ Post Pub. Co., 217
Mass. 213; Park _v._ Detroit Co., 72 Mich. 560; Barber _v._ St. Louis
Co., 3 Mo. App. 377; Stuart _v._ Press Co., 83 App. Div. 467; Byers
_v._ Meridian Printing Co., 84 Ohio St. 408; American Co. _v._ Gamble,
115 Tenn. 663; Houston Pub. Co. _v._ McDavid, (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S.
W. 467; Ilsley _v._ Sentinel Co., 133 Wis. 20.

_Report of criminal proceeding before magistrate with no
jurisdiction._ Lee _v._ Brooklyn Pub. Co., 209 N. Y. 245.

_Report of investigation before grand jury._ Poston _v._ Washington R.
Co., 36 App. D. C. 359; Sweet _v._ Post Publishing Co., 215 Mass. 450.

_Report in advance of judicial proceeding as to evidence to be
adduced._ Houston Pub. Co. _v._ Tiernan, (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W.
542. See Kelly _v._ Independent Pub. Co., 45 Mont. 127.

_Humorous report._ Bresslin _v._ Star Co., 85 Misc. 609.

_Matter added to the report._ Smith _v._ New Yorker Staats Zeitung,
154 App. Div. 458.

Footnote 467:

Only the opinion of Lord Coleridge, and that, too, slightly abridged,
is given. Lopes, J., concurred.

Footnote 468:

Curry _v._ Walter, 1 Esp. 456, 1 B. & P. 525; Lewis _v._ Levy, E. B. &
E. 537; Kimber _v._ Press Association, [1893] 1 Q. B. 65; McBee _v._
Fulton, 47 Md. 403; Salisbury _v._ Union Co., 45 Hun, 120 (_semble_);
Metcalf _v._ Times Co., 20 R. I. 674 (_semble_); Brown _v._ Providence
Co., 25 R. I. 117 (_semble_) _Accord_.

See Duncan _v._ Thwaites, 3 B. & C. 556; Parsons _v._ Age Herald Pub.
Co., 181 Ala. 439; Todd _v._ Every Evening Co., (Del.) 62 Atl. 1089;
Flues _v._ New Nonpareil Co., 155 Ia. 290; Cowley _v._ Pulsifer, 137
Mass. 392; Jones _v._ Pulitzer Pub. Co., 240 Mo. 200; Stanley _v._
Webb, 4 Sandf. 21; Matthews _v._ Beach, 5 Sandf. 256; Cincinnati Co.
_v._ Timberlake, 10 Ohio St. 548; Mengel _v._ Reading Eagle Co., 241
Pa. St. 367.

The report of _ex parte_ proceedings may be published before their
termination, if of such a character that there will be a final
decision. Kimber _v._ Press Association, [1893] 1 Q. B. 65.

Footnote 469:

Only the opinion of the court is given.

Footnote 470:

In 1843, see Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, vol. lxx. pp.
1254–8; and in 1858, see vol. cxlix. pp. 947–82.—Reporter’s Note.

Footnote 471:

See Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, vol. lxx. p. 1254; and
vol. cxlix. p. 947.—Reporter’s Note.

Footnote 472:

Garby _v._ Bennett, 57 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 853; Buckstaff _v._ Hicks, 94
Wis. 34 (_semble_—report of proceedings of common council of a city
not privileged); Dillon _v._ Balfour, L. R. 20 Ir. 600 _Accord_.

The publication must purport to be a report. Lewis _v._ Hayes, 165
Cal. 527.

Footnote 473:

The concurring opinions of Cockburn, C. J., and Baggallay and
Bramwell, JJ. A., and the arguments of counsel are omitted.

Footnote 474:

See Charlton _v._ Watton, 6 Car. & P. 385; Davison _v._ Duncan, 7. E.
& B. 229, 233; Popham _v._ Pickburn, 7 H. & N. 891; Davis _v._ Duncan,
L. R. 9 C. P. 396; Allbutt _v._ General Council, 23 Q. B. D. 400, 411.

By St. 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, §§ 3 and 4, “§ 3. A fair and accurate
report in any newspaper of proceedings publicly heard before any court
exercising judicial authority shall, if published contemporaneously
with such proceedings, be privileged: Provided that nothing in this
section shall authorize the publication of any blasphemous or indecent
matter.

Ҥ 4. A fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of the
proceedings of a public meeting, or (except where neither the public
nor any newspaper reporter is admitted) of any meeting of a vestry,
town council, school board, board of guardians, board or local
authority formed or constituted under the provisions of any Act of
Parliament, or of any committee appointed by any of the
above-mentioned bodies, or of any meeting of any commissioners
authorized to act by letters patent, Act of Parliament, warrant under
the Royal Sign Manual, or other lawful warrant or authority, select
committees of either House of Parliament, justices of the peace in
quarter sessions assembled for administrative or deliberative
purposes, and the publication at the request of any Government office
or department, officer of state, commissioner of police, or chief
constable of any notice or report issued by them for the information
of the public, shall be privileged, unless it shall be proved that
such report or publication was published or made maliciously: Provided
that nothing in this section shall authorize the publication of any
blasphemous or indecent matter: Provided also, that the protection
intended to be afforded by this section shall not be available as a
defence in any proceedings if it shall be proved that the defendant
has been requested to insert in the newspaper in which the report or
other publication complained of appeared a reasonable letter or
statement by way of contradiction or explanation of such report or
other publication, and has refused or neglected to insert the same:
Provided further, that nothing in this section contained shall be
deemed or construed to limit or abridge any privilege now by law
existing, or to protect the publication of any matter not of public
concern and the publication of which is not for the public benefit.

“For the purposes of this section ‘public meeting’ shall mean any
meeting _bona fide_ and lawfully held for a lawful purpose, and for
the furtherance or discussion of any matter of public concern, whether
the admission thereto be general or restricted.” Kelly _v._ O’Malley,
6 T. L. R. 62, was decided under this statute.

_Newspaper publication of reports of administrative officers._ Tilles
_v._ Pulitzer Pub. Co., 241 Mo. 609; Schwarz _v._ Evening News Co., 84
N. J. Law 486; Bingham _v._ Gaynor, 203 N. Y. 27. _Contra_, Madill
_v._ Currie, 168 Mich. 546. See Morasca _v._ Item Co., 126 La. 426.

_Report of investigation by administrative officers._ Williams _v._
Black, 24 S. D. 501.

Footnote 475:

The case has been much abridged.

Footnote 476:

Allbutt _v._ General Council, 23 Q. B. D. 400 _Accord_. But see
Kimball _v._ Post Pub. Co., 199 Mass. 248; Peoples Bank _v._ Goodwin,
148 Mo. App. 364.

_Report of proceedings of a church commission._ Bass _v._ Mathews, 69
Wash. 214.

Footnote 477:

Only the opinion of Mellish, L. J., is given.

Footnote 478:

Macdougall _v._ Knight, 14 App. Cas. 194 (explaining S. C. 17 Q. B.
Div. 636); Salisbury _v._ Union Co., 45 Hun, 120 _Accord_.

See Annaly _v._ Trade Co., L. R. 26 Ir. 394.

Footnote 479:

Parsons _v._ Age Herald Pub. Co., 181 Ala. 439; Washington Herald Co.
_v._ Berry, 41 App. D. C. 322; Lundin _v._ Post Pub. Co., 217 Mass.
213; Schwarz _v._ Evening News Co., 84 N. J. Law, 486; Williams _v._
Black, 24 S. D. 501; Williams Printing Co. _v._ Saunders, 113 Va. 156
_Accord_.

But see U. S. _v._ Journal Co., 197 Fed. 415; Tilles _v._ Pulitzer
Pub. Co., 241 Mo. 609.

“Their Lordships regret to find that there appeared on the one side of
this case the time-worn fallacy that some kind of privilege attaches
to the profession of the Press as distinguished from the members of
the public. The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the
freedom of the subject, and to whatever lengths the subject in general
may go so also may the journalist, but, apart from statute law, his
privilege is no other and no higher. The responsibilities which attach
to his power in the dissemination of printed matter may, and in the
case of a conscientious journalist do, make him more careful; but the
range of his assertions, his criticisms, or his comments is as wide
as, and no wider than, that of any other subject. No privilege
attaches to his position.” Lord Shaw in Arnold _v._ King-Emperor, 111
L. T. 324, 325.

Footnote 480:

The statement has been condensed, the facts sufficiently appearing in
the opinion of Mellor, J. The arguments of counsel and the concurring
opinion of Hannen, J., are omitted.

Footnote 481:

Barbaud _v._ Hookham, 5 Esp. 109; McDougall _v._ Claridge, 1 Camp.
267; Dunman _v._ Bigg, 1 Camp, 269 _n._; Todd _v._ Hawkins, 2 M. & R.
20, 8 Car. & P. 88; Shipley _v._ Todhunter, 7 Car. & P. 680; Harris
_v._ Thompson, 13 C. B. 333; Maitland _v._ Bramwell, 2 F. & F. 623;
Scarll _v._ Dixon, 4 F. & F. 250; Cooke _v._ Wildes, 5 E. & B. 328;
Croft _v._ Stevens, 7 H. & N. 570; Whiteley _v._ Adams, 15 C. B. N. S.
392; Spill _v._ Maule, L. R. 4 Ex. 232; Laughton _v._ Bishop, L. R. 4
P. C. 495; Davies _v._ Snead, L. R. 5 Q. B. 608; Waller _v._ Loch, 7
Q. B. D. 619; Cowles _v._ Potts, 34 L. J. Q. B. 247; Quartz Co. _v._
Beall, 20 Ch. Div. 501; Royal Aquarium _v._ Parkinson, [1892] 1 Q. B.
431; Pittard _v._ Oliver, [1891] 1 Q. B. 474; Phila. Co. _v._ Quigley,
21 How. 202; Broughton _v._ McGrew, 39 Fed. 672; Haight _v._ Cornell,
15 Conn. 74; Etchison _v._ Pergerson, 88 Ga. 620; Wharton _v._ Wright,
30 Ill. App. 343; Coombs _v._ Rose, 8 Blackf. 155; Kirkpatrick _v._
Eagle Lodge, 26 Kan. 384; Lynch _v._ Febiger, 39 La. Ann. 336;
Remington _v._ Congdon, 2 Pick. 310; Bradley _v._ Heath, 12 Pick. 163;
Farnsworth _v._ Storrs, 5 Cush. 412; York _v._ Pease, 2 Gray, 282;
Gassett _v._ Gilbert, 6 Gray, 94; Shurtleff _v._ Parker, 130 Mass. 293
(_semble_); Howland _v._ Flood, 160 Mass. 509; Landis _v._ Campbell,
79 Mo. 433; Rothholz _v._ Dunkle, 53 N. J. Law, 438; Jarvis _v._
Hatheway, 3 Johns, 180; O’Donaghue _v._ McGovern, 23 Wend. 26; Streety
_v._ Wood, 15 Barb. 105; Fowles _v._ Bowen, 30 N. Y. 20; Kilinck _v._
Colby, 46 N. Y. 427; McKnight _v._ Hasbrouck, 17 R. I. 70; Tillinghast
_v._ McLeod, 17 R. I. 208; Holt _v._ Parsons, 23 Tex. 9; Shurtleff
_v._ Stevens, 51 Vt. 501 (_semble_) _Accord_.

See also Dickeson _v._ Hilliard, L. R. 9 Ex. 79; Lyman _v._ Gowing, L.
R. 6 Ir. 259 (where the communication was made to unsuitable persons);
Phillips _v._ Bradshaw, 181 Ala. 541; Bohlinger _v._ Germania Ins.
Co., 100 Ark. 477.

_Communication by promoter of an enterprise to one whose assistance is
sought._ Cook _v._ Gust, 155 Wis. 594.

_Communication from superintendent of railroad to express company as
to employee who serves both._ International R. Co. _v._ Edmundson,
(Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 402.

_Communication by insurance adjuster to insurers._ Richardson _v._
Cooke, 129 La. 365.

_Indorsement of officer on recommendation for promotion._ Gray _v._
Mossman, 88 Conn. 247.

_Communication between stockholders as to manager of a corporation._
Ashcroft _v._ Hammond, 197 N. Y. 488.

_Communication by person immediately interested made honestly to
protect his own interest._ Delany _v._ Jones, 4 Esp. 190 (but see Lay
_v._ Lawson, 4 A. & E. 798); Fairman _v._ Ives, 5 B. & A. 642; Coward
_v._ Wellington, 7 Car. & P. 531; Tuson _v._ Evans, 12 A. & E. 733
(_semble_); Blackham _v._ Pugh, 2 C. B. 611; Wenman _v._ Ash, 13 C. B.
836 (_semble_, communication to unsuitable person); Manby _v._ Witt,
18 C. B. 544; Taylor _v._ Hawkins, 16 Q. B. 308; Amann _v._ Damm, 8 C.
B. N. S. 597; Force _v._ Warren, 15 C. B. N. S. 806; Oddy _v._ Paulet,
4 F. & F. 1009 (_semble_); Cooke _v._ Wildes, 5 E. & B. 328; Regina
_v._ Perry, 15 Cox C. C. 169; Bank _v._ Strong, 1 App. Cas. 307; Hunt
_v._ Great Northern Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 189; Baker _v._ Carrick,
[1894] 1 Q. B. 838; Hobbs _v._ Bryers, L. R. 2 Ir. 496; Lang _v._
Gilbert, 4 All. (N. B.) 445; Gasley _v._ Moss, 9 Ala. 266; Butterworth
_v._ Conrow, 1 Marv. 361; Henry _v._ Moberly, 23 Ind. App. 305;
Nichols _v._ Eaton, 110 Ia. 509; Caldwell _v._ Story, 107 Ky. 10;
Baysett _v._ Hire, 49 La. Ann. 904; Dickinson _v._ Hathaway, 122 La.
Ann. 644; Beeler _v._ Jackson, 64 Md. 589; Brow _v._ Hathaway, 13 All.
239; Bacon _v._ Mich. Co., 66 Mich. 166; Howard _v._ Dickie, 120 Mich.
238; Alabama Co. _v._ Brooks, 69 Miss. 168; Lovell Co. _v._ Houghton,
116 N. Y. 520; Lent _v._ Underhill, 54 App. Div. 609; Reynolds _v._
Plumbers’ Ass’n, 30 Misc. 709; Behee _v._ Missouri R. Co., 71 Tex.
424; Missouri R. Co. _v._ Richmond, 73 Tex. 568; Missouri Co. _v._
Behee, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 107; Miller _v._ Armstrong, 24 N. Zeal. 968.

Footnote 482:

The arguments of counsel are omitted.

Footnote 483:

Johnson _v._ Evans, 3 Esp. 32; Fowler _v._ Homer, 3 Camp. 294; Jones
_v._ Thomas, 34 W. R. 104; Lightbody _v._ Gordon, 9 Scotch Sess. Cas.
(4th series) 934; Dale _v._ Harris, 109 Mass. 193 _Accord_.

See to the same effect Flanagan _v._ McLane, 87 Conn. 220; Wall _v._
Seaboard Ry., 18 Ga. App. 457; Cristman _v._ Cristman, 36 Ill. App.
567; Harper _v._ Harper, 10 Bush, 447; Hyatt _v._ Lindner, 133 La.
614; Bavington _v._ Robinson, 127 Md. 46, 124 Md. 85; Eames _v._
Whittaker, 123 Mass. 342; Wells _v._ Toogood, 165 Mich. 677; Lally
_v._ Emery, 59 Hun, 237; Hayden _v._ Hasbrouck, 34 R. I. 556; Viss
_v._ Calligan, 91 Wash. 673. Compare Hansen _v._ Hansen, 126 Minn.
426; Hooper _v._ Truscott, 2 B. N. C. 457; Harrison _v._ Fraser, 29 W.
R. 652.

But see Peak _v._ Taubman, 251 Mo. 390; Vanloon _v._ Vanloon, 159 Mo.
App. 255; Hagener _v._ Pulitzer Pub. Co., 172 Mo. App. 436.

_Relevant statement in course of dispute as to property._ Alderson
_v._ Kahle, 73 W. Va. 690.

Footnote 484:

The argument for the plaintiff and the opinions of Lord Tenterden, C.
J., Bayley, and Littledale, JJ., are omitted.

Footnote 485:

_Servant cases._ Edmondson _v._ Stevenson, Bull. N. P. 8; Weatherston
_v._ Hawkins, 1 T. R. 110; Rogers _v._ Clifton, 3 B. & P. 587;
Pattison _v._ Jones, 8 B. & C. 578; Gardner _v._ Slade, 13 Q. B. 796;
Murdoch _v._ Funduklian, 2 T. L. R. 614 (reversing S. C. 2 T. L. R.
215); Doane _v._ Grew, 220 Mass. 171; Carroll _v._ Owen, 178 Mich. 551
_Accord_.

_Commercial agency cases._ Lemay _v._ Chamberlain, 10 Ont. 638; Todd
_v._ Dun, 12 Ont. 791; Erber _v._ Dun, 12 Fed. 526; Johnson _v._
Bradstreet Co., 77 Ga. 172; Pollasky _v._ Minchener, 81 Mich. 280;
Mitchell _v._ Bradstreet Co., 116 Mo. 226; King _v._ Patterson, 49 N.
J. Law, 417; Taylor _v._ Church, 8 N. Y. 452; Sunderlin _v._
Bradstreet, 46 N. Y. 188; Bradstreet Co. _v._ Gill, 72 Texas, 115
_Accord_.

Macintosh _v._ Dun, [1908] A. C. 390 _Contra_. _Aliter_ in case of
credit association not for profit. London Ass’n for Protection of
Trade _v._ Greenlands, [1916] 2 A. C. 15.

But information given to persons having no interest in the mercantile
standing of the plaintiff—for example, reports sent by a commercial
agency to its subscribers generally—is not privileged. Erber _v._ Dun,
12 Fed. 526; Trussell _v._ Scarlett, 18 Fed. 214 (criticising
Beardsley _v._ Tappan, 5 Blatchford, 497); Locke _v._ Bradstreet Co.,
22 Fed. 771; Pacific Packing Co. _v._ Bradstreet, 25 Idaho, 696;
Pollasky _v._ Minchener, 81 Mich. 280; Ormsby _v._ Douglass, 37 N. Y.
477; State _v._ Lonsdale, 48 Wis. 348.

For other cases of communications privileged because made in answer to
proper inquiries, see Cockayne _v._ Hodgkisson, 5 Car. & P. 543;
Storey _v._ Challands, 8 Car. & P. 234; Kline _v._ Sewell, 3 M. & W.
297; Hopwood _v._ Thorn, 8 C. B. 293; Robshaw _v._ Smith, 38 L. T.
Rep. 423; Weldon _v._ Winslow, Odgers, Lib. & Sl. (5th ed.) 255;
Melcher _v._ Beeler, 48 Col. 233; Zuckerman _v._ Sonnenschein, 62 Ill.
115; Richardson _v._ Gunby, 88 Kan. 47; Atwill _v._ Mackintosh, 120
Mass. 177; Howland _v._ Blake Co., 156 Mass. 543; Froslee _v._ Lund’s
State Bank, 131 Minn. 435; Fahr _v._ Hayes, 50 N. J. Law, 275; Posnett
_v._ Marble, 62 Vt. 481; Rude _v._ Nass, 79 Wis. 321.

_Advice by attorney to client as to person with whom client has
business._ Kruse _v._ Rabe, 80 N. J. Law, 378.

_Fiduciary relations._ Communications made in the line of a business
duty, for example, by an agent or employee to his principal or
employer are privileged. Wright _v._ Woodgate, 2 C. M. & R. 573;
Scarll _v._ Dixon, 4 F. & F. 250; Stace _v._ Griffith, L. R. 2 P. C.
420; Hume _v._ Marshall, 42 J. P. 136; Washburn _v._ Cooke, 3 Den.
110; Lewis _v._ Chapman, 16 N. Y. 369.

_Family relations._ A _bona fide_ communication by a brother to his
sister reflecting on the character of her suitor is privileged. Anon.,
2 Smith, 4, cited; Adams _v._ Coleridge, 1 T. L. R. 4. So is a similar
communication by a son-in-law to his mother-in-law. Todd _v._ Hawkins,
2 M. & Rob. 20, 8 C. & P. 88.

_Inquiry as to character of candidate for admission to a society._
Cadle _v._ McIntosh, 51 Ind. App. 365.

Footnote 486:

Only this opinion and the dissenting opinion of Creswell, J., are
given. Erle, J., concurred with the Lord Chief Justice; Coltman, J.,
agreed with Cresswell, J.

Footnote 487:

“If it had been necessary, I should have been fully prepared to go the
whole length of the doctrine laid down by Tindal, C. J., in the case
of Coxhead _v._ Richards,” _per_ Willes, J., in Amann _v._ Damm, 8 C.
B. N. S. 592, 602. Blackburn, J., in Davies _v._ Snead, L. R. 5 Q. B.
605, 611, and Lindley, J., in Stuart _v._ Bell, [1891] 2 Q. B. 341,
347, expressed similar approval of the opinion of Tindal, C. J.

Vanspike _v._ Cleyson, Cro. El. 541; Peacock _v._ Reynal, 2 Br. &
Gold. 151, 15 C. B. N. S. 418, cited; Herver _v._ Dowson, Bull. N. P.
8; Cleaver _v._ Sarraude, 1 Camp. 268, cited; Picton _v._ Jackman, 4
Car. & P. 257; Dixon _v._ Smith, 29 L. J. Ex. 125, 126; Masters _v._
Burgess, 3 T. L. R. 96; Stuart _v._ Bell, [1891] 2 Q. B. 341; Hart
_v._ Reed, 1 B. Mon. 166; Fresh _v._ Cutter, 73 Md. 87; Noonan _v._
Orton, 32 Wis. 106 _Accord_.

Cockayne _v._ Hodgkisson, 5 Car. & P. 543 (_semble_); King _v._ Watts,
8 Car. & P. 614; Brown _v._ Vannaman, 85 Wis. 451 _Contra_. But see
Hocks _v._ Sprangers, 113 Wis. 123.

In Bennett _v._ Deacon, 2 C. B. 628, a creditor of a buyer volunteered
a warning to the seller as to the buyer’s credit. The court was evenly
divided as to whether the communication was privileged.

Compare Irion _v._ Knapp, 132 La. 60 (letter to a public board as to a
candidate for an appointment).

INDIAN PENAL CODE, § 499, exception 9. It is not defamation to make an
imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation
be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the
person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

Footnote 488:

As to this remarkable litigant, see the article by Irving Browne,
“Count Joannes,” 8 Green Bag. 435.

Footnote 489:

Only what relates to this count is given.

Footnote 490:

Krebs _v._ Oliver, 12 Gray, 239; Byam _v._ Collins, 111 N. Y. 143
_Accord_.

Anon., 15 C. B. N. S. 410 (cited); Adcock _v._ Marsh, 8 Ired. 360
_Contra_. See Dobbin _v._ Chicago R. Co., 157 Mo. App. 689.

Footnote 491:

The statement of the case has been condensed.

Footnote 492:

In Simmonds _v._ Dunne, Ir. R. 5 C. L. 358; Over _v._ Schiffling, 102
Ind. 191; York _v._ Johnson, 116 Mass. 482, the communications were
not privileged for want of a legitimate interest or duty on the part
of the defendant.

See Whiteley _v._ Newman, 9 Ga. App. 89.

Footnote 493:

Only the opinion of the court is given.

Footnote 494:

Jones _v._ Thomas, 34 W. R. 104; Pittard _v._ Oliver, [1891] 1 Q. B.
474; Broughton _v._ McGrew, 39 Fed. 672; Brow _v._ Hathaway, 13 All.
239; Billings _v._ Fairbanks, 136 Mass. 177, 139 Mass. 66; Keane _v._
Sprague (N. Y. City Court), 30 Alb. L. J. 283 _Accord_.

Webber _v._ Vincent, 9 N. Y. Supp. 101 _Contra_.

_Defamatory letter after termination of employment._ National Cash
Register Co. _v._ Salling, 173 Fed. 22.

Footnote 495:

In Christopher _v._ Akin, 214 Mass. 332, the plaintiff was a
journeyman painter in the employ of the defendant, and was at work on
the house of one Tillinghast. Tillinghast complained to the defendant
that some of his men had stolen a putty knife and other property
belonging to him. The defendant recompensed Tillinghast for the
property and testified that he was told by one of his men that the
plaintiff had admitted to him that he took the putty knife. The men
were paid off by the defendant at his shop on Saturday night,—their
time being made up to Wednesday. Their pay was handed to them in
envelopes. When a man was discharged his envelope contained his pay up
to Saturday night. The plaintiff’s envelope contained his pay in full,
less what the defendant had paid Tillinghast for the property, with a
bill for it. There were four or five men in the shop waiting to be
paid off when it came the plaintiff’s turn to be paid. The plaintiff
opened his envelope and counted the money and found the bill. The
plaintiff asked the defendant what that meant, and the defendant said
in response, “Do you want to know in front of all these men?” and he
said “Yes,” whereupon the defendant said, “That is the stuff you stole
from the Tillinghast job.” Morton, J., said: “Whether a communication
is or is not privileged does not depend so much on the manner or form
in which crime is imputed, where the alleged slander consists as here
of a charge of crime, as on the occasion and circumstances under which
the charge is made. If made in good faith in reference to a matter in
which the person making it is immediately interested, and for the
purpose of protecting his interest and in the belief that it is true
and without any malicious motive, the communication is what is termed
privileged; that is, the occasion and the circumstances under which it
is made are held to be such as, if nothing more appears, to excuse or
justify the statements that are made.”

See Madill _v._ Currie, 168 Mich. 546.

Compare Adam _v._ Ward, [1917] A. C. 309 (statement given to the press
by the army board in reply to a speech in Parliament regarding an army
officer).

Footnote 496:

The statement of the case is abridged; the arguments of counsel and
the concurring opinions of Lord Coleridge, C. J., and Denman, J., are
omitted.

Footnote 497:

Robinson _v._ Jones, L. R. 4 Ir. 391 _Accord_.

Footnote 498:

Robinson _v._ Jones, L. R. 4 Ir. 391 _Accord_. See also Smith _v._
Crocker, 5 T. L. R. 441; Muetze _v._ Tuteur, 77 Wis. 236.

_Statement in presence of third persons not interested._ Fowlie _v._
Cruse, 52 Mont. 222; Fields _v._ Bynum, 156 N. C. 413.

_Notice of discharge of employee posted on the premises._ Ramsdell
_v._ Pennsylvania Co., 79 N. J. Law, 379.

_Notice to customers in a local newspaper._ Hatch _v._ Lane, 105 Mass.
394. See Delany _v._ Jones, 4 Esp. 190 (but see Ley _v._ Lawson, 4 A.
& E. 798); Commonwealth _v._ Featherston, 9 Phila. 594; Holliday _v._
Ontario Co., 33 Up. Can. Q. B. 558.

_General publicity with respect to candidate for local office._
Duncombe _v._ Daniel, 1 Willmore, W. & H. 101, 8 Car. & P. 222; Jones
_v._ Varnum, 21 Fla. 431; State _v._ Haskins, 109 Ia. 656; Coleman
_v._ MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711; Bronson _v._ Bruce, 59 Mich. 467; Wheaton
_v._ Beecher, 66 Mich. 307; Belknap _v._ Ball, 83 Mich. 583; Aldrich
_v._ Press Co., 9 Minn. 133 (but see, _contra_, Marks _v._ Baker, 28
Minn. 162); Bigner _v._ Hodges, 82 Miss. 215; Lewis _v._ Few, 5 Johns.
1; Root _v._ King, 7 Cow. 613; Hunt _v._ Bennett, 19 N. Y. 173; Seely
_v._ Blair, Wright, (Ohio) 358, 683; Knapp _v._ Campbell, 14 Tex. Civ.
App. 199; Sweeney _v._ Baker, 13 W. Va. 158. Compare Flynn _v._
Boglarsky, 164 Mich. 513.

But a communication to the electors alone is privileged, if made in
good faith. Wisdom _v._ Brown, 1 T. L. R. 412; Pankhurst _v._
Hamilton, 3 T. L. R. 500; Burke _v._ Mascarich, 81 Cal. 302
(_semble_); Mott _v._ Dawson, 46 Ia. 533; Bays _v._ Hunt, 60 Ia. 251;
State _v._ Balch, 31 Kan. 465; Commonwealth _v._ Wardwell, 136 Mass.
164; Briggs _v._ Garrett, 111 Pa. St. 404.