Catalfo v. Shenton
| Decision Date | 07 April 1959 |
| Citation | 149 A.2d 871,102 N.H. 47 |
| Parties | Alfred CATALFO, Jr. v. Enoch SHENTON et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Fuller, Flynn & Riordan and John C. Driscoll, Portsmouth, for plaintiff.
Orr & Reno and Malcolm McLane, Concord, for defendant Shenton.
Wyman, Bean & Tefft, Stanton E. Tefft, Manchester, orally, for defendant Courier Pub. Co.
The plaintiff, an attorney who was chairman of the Democratic State Committee, alleges 'that in substance the article [written and published by the defendants] calls the plaintiff 'a pig-in-the-parlor' element'; that the article has exposed him to public hatred, shame, contempt, ridicule, humiliation and disagrace; and that the article has injured his reputation as an attorney and injured his status as Democratic State Chairman by putting him 'in ridicule and shame before the general public and the Democrats of the State of New Hampshire.'
Research has not disclosed any case involving a public officer or a political candidate which holds that the phrase 'pig-in-the-parlor element' is a defamatory one. Every person, whether he be a newspaper editor, a political columnist or an unsung voter, has a right to comment upon or criticize political parties, public officers and candidates and their programs. Palmer v. City of Concord, 48 N.H. 211, 216; Lafferty v. Houlihan, 81 N.H. 67, 71, 121 A. 92; Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875. From an early date a citizen has been allowed 'to give useful information to the community' (State v. Burnham, 9 N.H. 34, 41) without being subject to actions for libel, in order that competent officers be elected and incompetent officers be removed. It frequently appears that the comment or criticism is not particularly useful and may be foolish, illogical, prejudiced or extravagant but this does not put it beyond the pale of fair comment into the orbit of libel. Restatement, Torts, § 606, comment c. 'Freedom of discussion is not to be confined within narrow limits although its outer boundaries are circumscribed by the law of libel.' Blanchard v. Claremont Eagle, Inc., 95 N.H. 375, 379, 63 A.2d 791, 794.
The phrase 'pig-in-the-parlor' suggests something out of place. 'A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, * * * like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.' Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388, 47 S.Ct 114, 118, 71 L.Ed. 303. The fact that the phrase is not a complimentary one does not automatically make it a libelous one. Criticism does not have to be diluted with praise in order to avoid the impact of a libel suit. The phrase, pig-in-the-parlor, also has some neutral tones to it in song and poem for young children but we may assume that it was not used in that sense in this case. See Bley, The Best Singing Games for Children of all Ages, p. 50 (1957); Depew, The Cokesbury Party Book 79, 80 (1932); Thomas Hood's Poetical Works, The Irish Schoolmaster 61 (Jerrold Ed.1935).
The article published by the defendants was essentially a comment on two alleged factions within the Democratic Party prior to a primary election. The article placed one faction in the category of modern 'lace curtain' Democrats which sought 'to take party control away from the pig-in-the-parlor element' of the 'Old Guard leadership' which presumably referred to the plaintiff. 'If criticism of a public officer or candidate is a means of attacking a political system of which he is a part, or if the criticism for any other reason affects a public policy of widespread interest, the area of comment may be extended as far as the interest is felt.' Restatement, Torts, § 607, comment b. It is not uncommon to find political commentators employing the basic and never-changing plot of 'Westerns' on television programs where there are only 'good guys' and 'bad guys.' So too in the political arena editors and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Brautigam, 58-409
...Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 333, 336; Mick v. American Dental Ass'n, supra, 49 N.J.Super, 262, 139 A.2d 570, 580; Catalfo v. Shenton, 102 N.H. 47, 149 A.2d 871, 873. See also, Boyer, Fair Comment, 15 Ohio St.L.J. 281, 293 (1954); Goodhart, Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. III: A C......
-
Chagnon v. Union Leader Corp.
...declaration and to dismiss the case before trial was properly denied. Gendron v. St. Pierre, 73 N.H. 419, 62 A. 966; Catalfo v. Shenton, 102 N.H. 47, 149 A.2d 871. Defendant maintains further that the Trial Court erred in permitting divers witnesses to testify as to how they understood the ......
-
Robie v. Lillis
...of the barnyard.' Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388, 47 S.Ct. 114, 118, 71 L.Ed. 303, 311 (1926); Catalfo v. Shenton, 102 N.H. 47, 49, 149 A.2d 871, 873 (1959). A person ordinarily has a valid expectation that an established, closely-settled neighborhood or subdivision will rem......
-
Jones v. Walsh
...the opinion that hearers of common and reasonable understanding could ascribe such a meaning to the defendant's words. Catalfo v. Shenton, 102 N.H. 47, 50, 149 A.2d 871; Baer v. Rosenblatt, 106 N.H. 26, 29, 203 A.2d 773; Washington Annapolis Hotel Co. v. Riddle, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 288, 171 F.2......