Howland v. Flood

• Decision Date: 27 February 1894
• Citation: 160 Mass. 509,36 N.E. 482
• Parties: HOWLAND SAME v. FLOOD. SAME v. NEWTON. SAME v. HOLT.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

160 Mass. 509

36 N.E. 482

HOWLAND SAME v. FLOOD. SAME v. NEWTON. SAME v. HOLT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 27, 1894

Defendants and Joseph W. Reed and H.H. McGrail were members of a committee appointed by the town of Maynard to investigate the waterworks of the town, constructed by Howland & Ellis, a firm of which plaintiff was a member. A report was written by Reed, and signed by the other members of the committee. The report was read at a town meeting by Reed, with the consent of defendants, and was afterwards published in the Maynard Enterprise. Following are the questions mentioned in the opinion, which were propounded to Reed and Flood: "Q. Mr. Reed, did you, after your committee was appointed, investigate the system of waterworks in the town of Maynard? A. Yes. Q. What investigation of that system did you make? *** Q. Mr. Reed, did your committee call on business men in the city of Boston, who had been and were then engaged in the same kind of business, and who knew Mr Howland, and were engaged in the same kind of business Mr Howland was then engaged in, and inquire of them about Mr Howland's financial standing or reputation for honesty? *** Q. Did Mr. Foran or Mr. Turner, at the office of the Blake Manufacturing Company, in Boston, tell your committee that Mr. Howland had been to them, and requested them to make cheaper machines or machinery for the Maynard waterworks, at a sum two thousand dollars less than the price which was understood should be paid, and that the water commissioners would never know the difference? *** Q. What did Mr. Rooke state to you with reference to the Maynard waterworks? *** Q. Did your committee have any conversation with Mr. Rooke, at that interview in Maynard, about the conduit line,--a portion of the Maynard waterworks?" Also, this question to the defendant Flood: "Did Mr. Howland say anything to your committee about any extension of his contract?"

COUNSEL

Edward Avery and H.L. Baker, for plaintiff.

John Hillis, for defendants.

OPINION

MORTON J.

In making the report, the defendants were performing a duty imposed upon them, and were communicating to the voters and taxpayers of the town the results of investigations in which they had an interest, and which they had the right to know and act upon. Bradley v. Heath, 12 Pick. 163. The occasion, therefore, was such as to protect the members of the committee from liability for any statements contained in the report, that were made in good faith, without malice, and with reasonable cause to believe them to be true, and which did not go beyond what was fairly required of them, in the discharge of their duty. The occasion was not such as to protect them absolutely from liability. There are comparatively few cases in which parties are protected absolutely from liability for statements which turn out to be defamatory. If the report contained anything in excess of the privilege, the members signing it were liable. Whether it did contain anything of that character was a question of fact, for the jury, upon which we must assume, in view of the statement in the exceptions that "full and specific instructions *** were given upon all issues raised in the case," that the jury received suitable instructions. See Burt v. Newspaper Co., 154 Mass. 243, 28 N.E. 1; Wright v. Lothrop, 149 Mass. 385, 21 N.E. 963; Atwill v. Mackintosh, 120 Mass. 177; Brow v. Hathaway, 13 Allen, 243; Smith v. Higgins, 16 Gray, 251; Gassett v. Gilbert, 6 Gray, 94; Bradley v. Heath, 12 Pick. 163; Odger, Sland. & L. *197; Byam v. Collins, 111 N.Y. 143, 19 N.E. 75.

The libel set out in the declaration charged the plaintiff, in substance, with larceny, dishonesty, worthless financial standing, and corrupt practices in his profession as a civil engineer. The answer is a general denial, privilege, and the truth, except as to the charge of larceny, and as to that and all other statements, that they were made in good faith, without malice, and to persons interested in said matters, and none other. Manifestly, upon the issues thus presented, it was immaterial whether the committee investigated the system of waterworks in the town of Maynard, or what were the merits of the controversy between the...