Robinson v. Coulter

• Decision Date: 22 October 1913
• Citation: Robinson v. Coulter, 215 Mass. 566, 102 N.E. 938 (Mass. 1913)
• Parties: ROBINSON v. COULTER et al.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

215 Mass. 566

102 N.E. 938

ROBINSON v. COULTER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 22, 1913

SYLLABUS

The alleged libel was as follows:

'On Tuesday afternoon, Dr. Mackay and Atty. Duncan went to the building. John T. McMahon, who is a contractor, was there, and they went through the building and made investigations as to certain things that up to that time they were only cognizant of by hearsay, and, according to their questions put to the architect and the nature of his answers, they learned some things while in the building.

'When seen to-day, John T. McMahon, who was with the two members of the committee who went through the building on Tuesday, gave out the following statement: 'I have looked over the plans and specifications of the Acre schoolhouse at two different times and have been through the building on several occasions. I find that the building is generally below specifications and I believe from what I have observed that $1,000 may have been saved in this way.'

'In answer to some questions, Mr. McMahon gave out the following:

"There are three floors in the building which, according to the method he used for figuring the strength of floors, are incapable of sustaining more than their own weight, with a good margin of safety, and that they are not fit floors to have children on at the present time. The specifications of the floors was first-class maple 2 1/2 inches wide; and third-class maple mixed with birch was used.

"The outside finish called for first-grade cypress in the plans and poor pine was used, which is a saving of 300 per cent. in this material, the cost of cypress being about $80 per 1,000 feet, while pine can be bought for $25 per 1,000 feet.

"The foundations of the building called for a coating of cement and tar to keep out the moisture and no cement was used on the foundations, the only material there being a coating of tar.'

'Among other things that Mr. McMahon said he found wrong with the building was that an inferior grade of slate was used, which information he says he received from a slater; that an inferior grade of glass was used in the windows. In the construction of the roof, where copper should have been used, paper was put in its place, and in other places zinc was used instead of copper. Some steps in the rear of the building, which should have been stone according to the specifications, are of wood.

'It has been stated that the sewer connections have been paid for by the town when they were called for originally to be paid for by the contractor. When asked with regard to that statement, Mr. McMahon said he saw the plans and he believed that the sewer connections should have been paid for by the contractor.'

COUNSEL

Geo. E. O'Toole and John H. O'Brien, both of Clinton, for appellant.

David I. Walsh and Thos. L. Walsh, both of Fitchburg, and Jas. H. Walsh, Jr., of Fitchburg, for appellees.

OPINION

DE COURCY, J.

A defamatory written statement which imputes to a contractor dishonesty or fraud in his business will in itself support an action of libel. Newell, Slander & Libel (2d Ed.) 195; Lovejoy v. Whitcomb, 174 Mass. 586, 55 N.E. 322. If the language of the newspaper article in question, taking the words in their natural sense, may fairly bear the meaning that the plaintiff dishonestly failed to comply with his contract to erect a school building, the demurrer must be overruled. 'It is only when the court can say that the publication is not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning, and cannot reasonably be understood in any defamatory sense, that the court can rule, as matter of law, that the publication is not libelous.' Field, J., in Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass. 464.

...