Briola v. J. P. Bass Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1942
• Citation: 25 A.2d 489
• Parties: BRIOLA v. J. P. BASS PUB. CO. et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

25 A.2d 489

BRIOLA

v. J. P. BASS PUB. CO. et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 25, 1942.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hancock County.

Action for libel by Peter Briola against J. P. Bass Publishing Company and others. To review ruling sustaining demurrers to the declaration, the plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

Before STURGIS, C. J., and THAXTER, HUDSON, MANSER, WORSTER, and MURCHIE, JJ.

Peter Briola and Blaisdell & Blaisdell, all of Ellsworth, for plaintiff.

Fellows & Fellows, of Bangor, for defendants.

THAXTER, Justice.

The plaintiff, an attorney at law, has brought an action for libel against the J. P. Bass Publishing Co., the owner and publisher of the Bangor Daily Commercial, against Frank L. Bass, the managing editor, and against Delmont T. Dunbar, a reporter of the newspaper, who wrote the article which the plaintiff claims is libelous. The declaration is composed of four counts in two of which the whole article is set forth, in the others only those parts which are regarded as essential. One count in each class relates to the injury alleged to have been done to the plaintiff as an individual, the others to the injury done to him as an attorney and counselor at law. The allegations in each count setting forth the alleged libelous matter are in substance the same.

The article which has given offense to the plaintiff related to his testimony in a case pending in the Superior Court which was heard by referees at Auburn. The essential part of the alleged libelous matter is set forth in the plaintiff's declaration as follows:

"Evidence closed on the direct testimony of Peter Briola, Ellsworth Attorney, in the $10,000 suit of Brann and Isaacson of Lewiston against the City of Ellsworth for alleged breach of contract, with Mr. Briola depositing the parentage of the child nobody cares to claim,—the idea to hire Brann and Isaacson—squarely in the lap of the absent councillor, Myron R. Carlisle. This came in the nature of surprise testimony, for Mr. Briola had previously stated in public and in the presence of this writer that councillor C. M. Gott made the motion at that now famous meeting. 'Who made the motion to hire Brann and Isaacson' asked Mr. Isaacson, acting for the firm of which he is a member? 'Myron R. Carlisle,' replied Mr. Briola, never raising his eyes from the floor.' (meaning the plaintiff had falsified in court and thereby committed the crime of perjury)— in the report of Attorney Isaacson's allegations, in his opening, the report in part is as follows, to wit: 'Ellsworth finding itself faced with the probability of exceeding its debt limit, if indeed it had not already done so, he stated, approached his firm through the City Solicitor, Peter Briola with the idea that they use their influence and experience through previous dealings with the RFC, to have the amount of the mortgage materially reduced,—to be specific by $55,000 (Mr. Briola said $60,000)' (meaning to convey the impression by said parenthesis that the plaintiff had falsified in court)."

To each count of the declaration, a special demurrer was filed. To the ruling of the presiding justice sustaining these demurrers, the plaintiff filed exceptions which are now before us.

In so far as we regard the special grounds...