Bradford v. Clark

• Decision Date: 29 May 1897
• Citation: 90 Me. 298,38 A. 229
• Parties: BRADFORD v. CLARK et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

38 A. 229

90 Me. 298

BRADFORD

v. CLARK et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 29, 1897.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Lincoln county.

Action by George F. Bradford against William M. Clark and Austin S. Thompson for slander. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendants move for new trial, and take exceptions. Motion sustained.

T. P. Pierce and J. W. Brackett, for plaintiff.

W. H. Hilton, for defendants.

WHITEHOUSE, J. In an action for slander brought against the two defendants jointly the plaintiff recovered a verdict for $31.47. The case comes to the law court on exceptions and motion for a new trial.

It is alleged in the declaration that the plaintiff was supervisor of schools in the town of Bristol in March, 1896, and in that capacity had the care and custody of the school books belonging to the town; that in pursuance of a conspiracy between the defendants to "defame and injure the plaintiff, and especially to deprive him of service in his said office," they declared "that the school books had been burned" (by said Clark spoken of and concerning said complainant), adding, "I can prove it." Thereupon the said Austin S. Thompson replied, personally addressing complainant, "You, the superintendent of schools, have thrown the text-books into the stove in presence of children."

In the brief statement of defense it is claimed that the slanderous words imputed to the defendants respectively "were privileged, and uttered without malice, and in good faith, in the exercise of their respective rights as citizens of the town of Bristol, at the annual meeting of said town held on the 2d day of March, 1896, while article 7 of the warrant for said meeting, to wit, 'To see what sum of money the town would vote to raise for the purchase of school text-books,' was being considered in said meeting."

It appears from the plaintiff's testimony and other evidence, which is substantially uncontroverted, that when, in the course of the deliberations at this meeting, article 7 in the warrant was reached, the defendant Clark said: "Mr. Moderator, I move that the article be dismissed. The town cannot afford to raise money to buy books to be used for kindling wood. The town books have been burned during the last year, and I can prove it."

Thereupon the plaintiff, who was sitting on the platform, touched the moderator, and said, "Mr. Moderator, I understand the gentleman to say the books had been burned in town." The moderator replied, "Yes, that is his statement." The plaintiff then said, "I demand proof of the statement, that the guilty party may be brought to justice, as I am the supervisor and custodian of the books." After a short speech by Mr. Brackett in favor of an appropriation under the article in question, the moderator stated, in substance, that if there was any person in the hall who knew anything in regard to His destruction of school books, he wished he would make it known. In response to this request the defendant Thompson came forward, and said: "Mr. Moderator, I suppose I am the man. During the year, in district No. 5, where my children have attended school, the supervisor, Mr. Bradford, threw school books into the stove, and I can prove it by them." In his testimony Mr. Thompson says: "I had three children that was attending that school, and they said there had been books put into that stove. I was a taxpayer of the town of Bristol, and If I was paying taxes to buy books to be used as kindling I wanted an explanation then and there." Mr. Clark testifies that he had been informed by his son, a "reputable citizen," 30 years of age, that school books had been put into the stove. It also appears in evidence that missing books bad been advertised in a newspaper, and that the "air was full of rumors" in regard to the loss and...