Finley v. Steele

• Decision Date: 18 December 1900
• Citation: 159 Mo. 299,60 S.W. 108
• Parties: FINLEY v. STEELE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 S.W. 108

159 Mo. 299

FINLEY v. STEELE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 18, 1900.

LIBEL — INCOMPETENCY OF TEACHER — REPORT OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS—PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS—ACTUAL MALICE—PROOF —NECESSITY.

Rev. St. 1889, § 8030, provides that the county school commissioner may revoke a certificate to teach, for incompetency and cruelty, on satisfactory proof thereof, and that all charges shall be preferred in writing and signed by the parties. A county school commissioner, after complaint had been made to him of plaintiff's incompetency as a teacher, wrote to defendants, who constituted the board of directors by whom she was employed, requesting a report of plaintiff's trouble with her pupils. Held that, in the absence of proof of actual malice, defendants were not liable for libel in writing a defamatory letter to the school commissioner in response to such request, since it was a qualified privileged communication.

Appeal from circuit court, Vernon county; D. P. Stratton, Judge.

Action by Lou C. Finley against E. T. Steele and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This action is prosecuted by plaintiff against defendants for $10,000 damages claimed to have been sustained by her by reason of an alleged libelous communication written by defendants to one R. L. Walker. At the time of the publication of the communication plaintiff was engaged in teaching school at district No. 131, in Vernon county, defendants were members of the school board of the district, and Walker was the county school commissioner of the county. The communication which forms the basis of the action is as follows: "Richards, Mo., Feb'y 27, '97. Mr. Robert T. Walker, Com.—Dear Sir: We, the undersigned directors of school district No. 131, would most respectfully ask you to revoke the certificate to Mrs. Lou Finley, who at present has charge of our school. From the most reliable and conclusive evidence in our possession, we must say that she is totally unfit to teach our school. She is very tyrannical and abusive and indecent, and our school is doing no good. We have trouble, more or less, all the time, and have hoped, after having called her in and talked over the matter with her, that she would get along better, but things are getting worse. We could not enumerate all the charges that have been preferred, but she has kept some of the small boys in until one had to respond to nature in his pants, and another had to make a run for it, and afterwards to punishment for it. She has whipped unmercifully, pulled their ears, and otherwise mistreatea them, until they do not respect her. She has called the children liars. And, hoping you will take immediate action, we are, yours, E. T. Steele, J. D. Todd, J. H. Fouts, Members of Board." Defendants, by answer, admit writing and sending to Walker, the school commissioner, the communication in question, and then allege that it was written in the discharge of their duties as members of the school board of said school district, and without malice, under substantially the following state of facts: The school term began in September, 1896. Shortly thereafter plaintiff had trouble with several of her pupils. During the fall, complaints against plaintiff as teacher were made to the board of directors. In December a petition signed by 12 patrons of the school, complaining of appellant, and requesting the board to ask her to resign, was presented to the board. Letters and informal complaints were sent by the patrons of the school to County Superintendent Walker, who, in response to the complaints made in December, wrote to the board, asking about the trouble between appellant and her pupils. On account of the complaints the board called appellant before it and requested her to resign. She refused. It then passed resolutions requesting her to resign. She still declined. Defendants then filed the charges complained of with County Superintendent Walker. Upon receipt of the charges the school commissioner notified the plaintiff that charges had been preferred against her, and set a day for the investigation of them, but the charges were withdrawn before the investigation was had. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the court instructed the jury to find for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

Scott & Bowker and J. B. Johnson, for appellant. Brown, Harding & Brown, Wight & Wight, and W. O. Todd, for respondents.

BURGESS, J. (after stating the facts).

The publication in question was with respect to plaintiff as school teacher, and is, upon its face, clearly defamatory, and, if false, actionable per se, unless absolutely or qualifiedly privileged. Absolutely privileged publications are legislative and judicial proceedings and naval and military affairs, while a qualified privilege "extends to all communications made bona fide upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an...