Crane v. Waters

• Decision Date: 23 February 1882
• Citation: 10 F. 619
• Parties: CRANE v. WATERS and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

10 F. 619

CRANE v. WATERS and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

February 23, 1882

A. B Wentworth and F. F. Heard, for plaintiff.

Russell & Putnam, for defendants.

The defendants published in their newspaper, the Boston Daily Advertiser, an article concerning an attempt of Edward Crane the plaintiff, to procure the election of directors of the New York & New England Railroad Company at the then recent annual meeting. The article was entitled 'History Repeated,' and purported to give a narrative of the dealings of the plaintiff with the Boston, Hartford & Erie Railroad Company by which he had brought it to bankruptcy and to give the impression that he intended to act in a similar way with the New York & New England, which was a corporation formed by the bondholders of the other road. The project attributed to the plaintiff included the buying up of certain railroads in Connecticut, consolidating them with the New York & New England Company, etc. It alleged that the plaintiff's schemes were exposed by skilful questioning at the meeting, and that he had retired discomfited.

The plaintiff, in his declaration, set out this article in full and in the first count alleged damage generally; in the second that he was a manager and constructor of railroads, and was engaged in a business undertaking to make a through line between Boston and New York by the purchase and construction of railroads, and that the New York

& New England Railroad was to be a part of the line; but, by the publication of the libel, he lost the support of some of his associates, and of stockholders of that road, and suffered special damage.

The defendants answered-- First, that the statements made in the article were true; second, that the railroad concerning which the article was written was a public work of great importance to the commonwealth and people of Massachusetts, and in which the commonwealth was a large stockholder; that the other stockholders were numerous, and could only be reached through the press; that the effort of the plaintiff to obtain control of the railroad was a matter in which the public were interested, and was a proper subject of discussion in the newspapers; and that the defendants, believing that such control would be a public misfortune, and would be a serious injury to the railroad and to the public, discussed the plaintiff's plans and qualifications in good faith, and without malice; and that they made only such statements and reflections as they believed, on due inquiry and reasonable grounds, to be true and just, and warranted by the plaintiff's acts. To this second part of the answer the plaintiff demurred.

LOWELL C.J.

For the purpose of deciding this demurrer it must be assumed that the plaintiff had conceived and begun to carry out a plan for making a railroad from Boston to New York by the consolidation of certain shorter lines, and otherwise, and that it was a part of his plan to obtain control of the New York & New England Company by electing directors favorable to his scheme; that the publication of the article complained of interfered with this plan to his prejudice; and that the statements of the article were not true, but were published in good faith, without express malice, and were, upon reasonable inquiry by the defendants, believed by them to be true.

The contention then is, on the part of the defendants, that the subject-matter is one in which the public has an interest, and that in discussing a subject of that sort a public speaker or writer is not bound at his peril to see that his statements are true, but has a qualified privilege, as it has been called, in respect to such matters.

The modern doctrine, as shown by the cases cited for the defendants, appears to be that the public has a right to discuss, in good faith, the...