Goldborough v. Orem & Johnson
| Decision Date | 15 June 1906 |
| Citation | 64 A. 36,103 Md. 671 |
| Parties | GOLDBOROUGH v. OREM & JOHNSON. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dorchester County; Charles F. Holland and Henry Lloyd, Judges.
Action by Phillips L. Goldborough against Orem & Johnson. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BOYD, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER JONES, and BURKE, JJ.
Charles Markell, Jr., and Edgar H. Gans, for appellant.
George H. Dawson, Jr., and Sewell T. Milbourne, for appellees.
This is an action of trespass on the case for libel. There are four counts in the declaration, and the publications which constitute the alleged libels appeared in a newspaper published in Dorchester county, Md., called the "Democrat and News," of which the defendants were the owners, editors, and publishers. The publications appeared on the 2d of May, 1903, and on the 6th and 27th of February, 1904. At the time of the publications complained of, and for a number of years prior thereto, the plaintiff was a member of the vestry of Great Choptank parish of the diocese of Easton, in the state of Maryland, of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Christ Protestant Episcopal Church of Cambridge, of which the Reverend Thomas Carter Page had for some years been rector, was situated in said parish, and the business affairs of said church including the selection and removal of its rector, are and were controlled and directed by the vestry of Great Choptank parish. In the fall of 1902, the health of Mr. Page, the rector, became so impaired that the vestry granted him a leave of absence for the period of six months, and during his absence another clergyman, who had been recommended by Mr Page, was appointed by the vestry to discharge the duties of rector. The leave of absence granted Mr. Page would have expired on or about the 10th of May, 1903. The vestry, inspired by a desire to promote the welfare of the church and parish, and believing that Mr. Page would be physically unable to perform the duties required of him as rector at the expiration of the leave of absence, and knowing that said church and parish were financially unable to support two rectors, determined to request him to tender his resignation. Upon the propriety of this request great and decided opposition developed both in the membership of the vestry and in the congregation, which resulted in a bitter factional feeling. The plaintiff was opposed to the retention of Mr. Page. The vestry was composed of eight members. On the 18th of April, 1903, at a meeting of the vestry, at which seven members were present, by vote of four of its members, including the plaintiff, a resolution was passed requesting Mr. Page to tender his resignation as rector, to take effect on the 1st day of June, 1903, and directing its registrar, Mr. Bayley, to notify him of its action. On the 22d of April, 1903, at a special meeting of the vestry, the resolution of the 18th of April was rescinded before notification thereof had been sent to Mr. Page. The plaintiff voted for the rescission of the resolution. Before the revocation of said resolution, but without the knowledge thereof of the vestry, Mr. Page had sent his resignation. The declaration alleges: "That the citizens of said town of Cambridge and in other portions of said county and elsewhere, where the said newspaper circulated and was read, and in particular the readers of said newspaper on the 2d day of May, 1903, well knew the persons composing said vestry, and those thereof opposed to the retention of the said Rev. Thomas Carter Page as rector aforesaid, and those thereof voting for said resolution as aforesaid; yet the defendants well knowing the premises, and contriving, and wickedly and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff in his good name, fame, and credit, and to bring him into public scandal, infamy, and disgrace, with and amongst all his neighbors and other good and worthy citizens of the county aforesaid and elsewhere, wherever the said newspaper would be circulated and read, heretofore, to wit, on the 2d day of May, 1903, referring to the action of said four members, including the plaintiff, in voting for the passage of said resolution, and their opposition to the retention of the said Rev. Thomas Carter Page as rector as a foresaid, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously did compose and publish, and caused to be composed and published in their said newspaper, called the 'Democrat and News,' of and concerning the said four members of said vestry, including the plaintiff, so voting for the said resolution as aforesaid, and in particular of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the said office of the said four members of the said vestry, including the plaintiff, voting for said resolution as aforesaid, and in particular of and concerning the aforesaid office of the plaintiff, and of and concerning the conduct of the said four members of the said vestry, including the plaintiff, voting for the said resolution as aforesaid in their said offices, and in particular of and concerning the plaintiff's conduct in his said office, a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel, which was understood by the readers of said newspaper in the sense hereinafter set forth in the innuendo, and intended by the defendants to be so understood, containing, amongst other things, the false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, libelous matter, and caused the same to be widely circulated and read in the said town of Cambridge, in other portions of said county and elsewhere, as follows, that is to say: 'The vestry (thereby meaning the said four members, including the plaintiff, so voting for said resolution as aforesaid, and in particular the plaintiff) relentlessly turn their back upon legal and moral obligation to the detriment of a rector (meaning the said Rev. Thomas Carter Page), who suffered himself to become debilitated while plodding along the path of duty to his congregation (meaning the congregation of the said Christ Episcopal Church of Cambridge)'--and the defendants meant thereby that the said four members of said vestry, including the plaintiff, voting for the said resolution as aforesaid, and, in particular, the plaintiff, had relentlessly violated legal and moral obligations." This constitutes the first count.
The second count declares upon the said publication set out in the first count, but avers the words were written and published of the plaintiff in his office and character of vestryman in said parish. The circumstances under which the alleged libel was published upon which the third count is based are as follows: The vestry of Great Choptank parish aforesaid is elected annually on Easter Monday by the qualified voting members of the parish. The date for the election of the vestrymen for the parish for the year 1904 was the 13th day of April of that year, and at that meeting the plaintiff was duly elected one of the vestrymen of said parish. After Mr. Page had resigned, a meeting of the vestry attended by all its members, was held, and by vote of five to three, the plaintiff being one of the five, extended a call to Rev. Arthur E. Waltham to the rectorship of Christ Church, which call he accepted. For some time prior to and up to the annual election of vestrymen for the year 1903, the five vestrymen, including the plaintiff, so voting to extend said call, were well known to the voting membership of said parish to favor calling Mr. Arthur E. Waltham as rector of the church to succeed Mr. Page. We here insert the following averments of the declaration: "That the said five members of the said vestry so voting for the aforesaid call to the said Reverend Arthur E. Waltham on the 6th day of February, 1904, and prior thereto, and subsequent thereto, desired to succeed themselves in their office of said vestrymen, and were so known at all of said times to so desire to succeed themselves as aforesaid by said voting members of said parish, many of whom were readers of said newspaper on the said 6th day of February, 1904. Yet, the defendants, well knowing the premises and contriving, and wickedly and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff in his good name, fame, and credit, and to bring him into public scandal, infamy, and disgrace, with and amongst all his neighbors, and other good and worthy citizens of the county aforesaid and elsewhere wherever the said newspaper should be circulated and read, and to prevent the plaintiff from being elected a vestryman of said Great Choptank parish at the annual election of vestrymen to be held on the 13th day of April, A. D. 1904, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously did compose and publish, and caused to be composed and published in their said newspaper, called the 'Democrat and News,' of and concerning the said five members (including the plaintiff) of the said vestry of the said Great Choptank parish so voting for the call to the said Reverend Arthur E. Waltham as rector of said Christ Church as aforesaid, and in particular of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the office of the said five members (including the plaintiff) of the said vestry of said Great Choptank parish so voting for the call to the said Reverend Arthur E. Waltham as rector of said Christ Church as aforesaid, and in particular of and concerning the aforesaid...
To continue reading
Request your trial