Ewing v. Ainger

• Citation: 96 Mich. 587,55 N.W. 996
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 26 July 1893
• Parties: EWING v. AINGER et al.

55 N.W. 996

96 Mich. 587

EWING v. AINGER et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 26, 1893

Error to circuit court, Eaton county; Frank A. Hooker, Judge.

Action by John W. Ewing against Daniel B. Ainger and Charles E Baxter to recover damages for libel. From a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of defendants, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

James M. Powers, for appellant.

Huggett & Smith, for appellees.

LONG J.

Defendants are the owners and publishers of the Charlotte Republican, a newspaper printed and published at Charlotte. This action is brought to recover damages for libel in the publication of two articles by the defendants in their paper. One was published July 24, 1891, and the other August 20th of the same year, and relate to the action of the plaintiff while a member of the board of supervisors of Eaton county. The first article, as set out in the declaration, is substantially as follows: "Another Chapter on John Ewing. Editors Republican: Some portions of the records and doings of the board of supervisors may be of interest to the taxpayers of the county. October session of 1884, several petitions were presented to the board to abolish the office of county drain commissioner. A committee of three was appointed to investigate and report. A majority reported as follows: 'Would respectfully report that in our opinion such a course, at this time, would be inexpedient and prejudicial to the best interests of the county.' Mr Ewing moved that the majority report be adopted. Motion prevailed. Moved to proceed to the election of drain commissioner, the same man being elected by eleven votes. January 5, 1885, a committee of three appointed on drainage. Moved that all matters relating to drains and drainage brought up at this session of the board, be referred to the committee, when appointed. Amended by adding the words 'and that the said committee be authorized to receive statements from persons in regard to reports in circulation respecting the action of the present drain commissioner in his duties as such commissioner.' Amendment prevailed, and original, as amended, carried, Mr. Ewing being appointed on the committee.

January 8, moved that the board deem it inexpedient for the committee to visit the Milbourn extension drain. Motion prevailed. January 15, committee made a report, which is on file in the clerk's office, a part of which is as follows: 'That there be a committee appointed from this board, whose duty it shall be to hear grievances from any parties, arising from any irregularities of said commissioner; and, if said charges seem to warrant the action of the board of supervisors before their next regular session, then it shall be the duty of said committee to have the board called together, that they may take action on said charges. And we do recommend that, as we have not a satisfactory report from said commissioners, that he be requested to make, on or before the 18th of February next, to said committee, an itemized statement, etc., which was done by said commissioner, and is now on file in the clerk's office.' Not one word authorizing Reformer Ewing to spend so many days at three dollars per day, and travel so many miles at ten cents per mile. A claim for damages having been presented for certain acts of the drain commissioner, on October 18, 1885, Mr. Ewing, for the committee, submitted the following report: 'Would report that we have carefully considered the same, and we do not believe the county is in any way responsible, and would refer you to Michigan Reports, vol. 49, page 479, [ Dawson v Township of Aurelius, 13 N.W. 824,] which says: "A township is not responsible for the defaults and misconduct of its drain commissioner in the performance of his statutory duties." Your committee would report the said claim back to this body with the recommendation that the same be disallowed. Motion prevailed.' Then he brings claim for $61.80, as stated last week by your correspondent. He figures very liberally on his own claims, but reports a claim of Dr. E., and moves that it be allowed at five dollars,-one-half the amount claimed. He reports the claim of Dr. A., of forty-five dollars, and moves that it be allowed at twenty dollars. All this without regard to the value of the services performed. Many more such instances could be cited, but these are sufficient to convey an idea of his methods on the board. Oh, yes, he loves the taxpayer, as the following items will show: The total amount received by him from the taxpayers of Eaton county in the last eight years, so far as found, foots up to $848.62, and this does not include what he has received from his own town as supervisor. We even find that he had drawn from the county treasurer, for his services in caring for the poor of his township since November, 1883, the sum of $92.50, being $11.50 per year. We doubt if the poor families in the county, receiving help, will average as much for the same length of time; the supervisors of Benton, Bellevue, and Vermontville, combined, only drawing $121.74 for their services. We mention these towns, as each have a village. Economy for the taxpayer, you see, is his motto. We now present a tabulated statement of the amount drawn by him for services and mileage for the various sessions of the board, and the amounts to which he was lawfully entitled." The tabulated statement is not set out here, but consists of a statement of the number of miles charged for travel, and miles which it is claimed he was entitled to; days charged, and days he was entitled to; and the amount of claimed overcharge in each year from 1883 to and including the session of the board in 1891; making a total for per diem and mileage of claimed overcharge of $200.82. Continuing, the article reads: "Now, to be fair with Mr. Ewing, his attention is called to the above table, and he is invited to select out such items therein as he deems to be wrong, and state to the public wherein they are incorrect; and we ask Mr. Ewing to state, over his own signature, what the distance (by the nearest traveled route) is from his home to Charlotte. To be exact, is it not 13 3/8 miles? Also we ask him what the statutory fee allowed members of the board of supervisors per mile is. And, again, to state the statute which allows him fees as supervisor for any work, except during the session of such board. When he does this, we have a long list of others to call his attention to; and, like Banquo's ghost, these inquiries will not down until they are answered, and until this modern reformer has himself reformed. Oh, yes, he loves the taxpayer, and is 'very careful of the people's money,' when he 'gets it.' One of the Taxpayers." The second article, as set out in the declaration, is as follows: "We have waited patiently to hear Reformer John deny the charges made in the Charlotte Republican, of taking...