Shurtleff v. Parker

• Decision Date: 09 February 1881
• Parties: David Shurtleff v. Horace Parker
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

130 Mass. 293

David Shurtleff v. Horace Parker

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

February 9, 1881

Argued September 30, 1879 [Syllabus Material]

Worcester. Tort in several counts for slander and libel. The counts for slander alleged that the defendant falsely said that the plaintiff, a Congregational minister, was not connected with any association of ministers, and was sent away fro societies, of which he had formerly been the pastor without the usual recommendations.

The count for libel charged the defendant with publishing the following defamatory language concerning the plaintiff, by signing and sending the same on a postal card to the Rev. Dr Stevens: "Dear Brother: If you can, do stop this man from making more trouble in the churches. He is unfit for the office and work of the ministry. He belongs to no organization here, and we cannot reach him."

The answer contained a general denial; alleged that the plaintiff had been dismissed from religious societies over which he had been settled as a clergyman, without the usual commendations to the churches, namely, in the year 1869, from his pastorate over the Congregational Society of Brownington in the State of Vermont; and further alleged that the statements in the alleged libel were true.

Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the defendant, a Congregational minister, preaching to a society in Ayer, uttered the words alleged in the counts for slander, at a church meeting in Ayer.

The plaintiff put in evidence the deposition of a witness, who was present on the occasion of the alleged slander, and testified to the same. On the objection of the defendant, the judge excluded the following interrogatories and answers:

"Int. 11. What effect had the words spoken by the defendant, mentioned by you, so far as you know?" "Ans. The first effect was to start inquiry as to the facts upon which it might be based. The second effect was to unsettle confidence in the character of the plaintiff, and so to hinder his religious influence among that people, and to prevent his securing ministerial labor there or elsewhere."

"Int. 12. Do you know, of your own knowledge, whether the words spoken by the defendant, mentioned by you, were generally reported among the different churches?" "Ans. I have heard the words repeatedly quoted and questioned upon as to the reason of their utterance, and the facts upon which they are based."

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, who was a Congregational minister, had been dismissed from a pastoral charge in Brownington, Vermont, in 1869, by a mutual council of neighboring churches, and the defendant offered evidence tending to show that he left there with a bad reputation for truth and veracity, and also as a minister. The defendant offered the evidence of one Stevens, that the plaintiff told him in 1871, that he, the plaintiff, could have remained at Brownington at a larger salary, if he would have done so. The plaintiff objected to this evidence, but it was admitted. The plaintiff in cross-examination denied that there was any trouble between him and the church at Brownington, and denied that he refused to join in a mutual council until the church was about to call an ex parte council, and also denied that he told Stevens in 1871, that he could have remained at Brownington at a larger salary, if he would have done so.

The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the defendant wrote and put into the post-office the postal card set out in the count for libel, and that the same was received by the person to whom it was addressed.

The plaintiff at that time was a member of the Windham Association, a voluntary unincorporated association of Congregational ministers, organized in Windham County, Vermont. The purpose of that association was the mutual improvement of the members, by means of literary and other exercises, and the association had the power to expel its members for any misconduct. Stevens, to whom the postal card was sent, was also a member of said association. The defendant was not a member of the association. The plaintiff was not at the time of the writing and publishing the alleged libel engaged in preaching anywhere, having resigned as pastor of the church in Shirley on April 22, and his resignation having been accepted May 3, 1877. The defendant and his family were members and attendants of the church in Shirley where the plaintiff had preached. There were intimate private relations between the members of the church in Shirley, and the members of the church in Ayer, where the defendant preached.

The defendant contended that the occasion of writing and publishing the alleged libel was privileged. The plaintiff contended that, as a matter of law, on the facts here stated the occasion was not privileged, and asked the judge to instruct the jury as follows: "1. There was nothing in the relation of the defendant to the plaintiff, or of Stevens to the plaintiff or defendant, to make the occasion of publishing the alleged libel privileged. 2. Under the...