Snavely v. Booth

• Decision Date: 07 January 1935
• Citation: 36 Del. 378,176 A. 649
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: HENRY E. SNAVELY v. NEWLIN T. BOOTH, JAMES T. ELIASON, JR., HORACE L. DEAKYNE and THE NEWS-JOURNAL COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware

176 A. 649

36 Del. 378

HENRY E. SNAVELY v. NEWLIN T. BOOTH, JAMES T. ELIASON, JR., HORACE L. DEAKYNE and THE NEWS-JOURNAL COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

January 7, 1935

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Superior Court for New Castle County, No. 70, September Term 1934.

Action to recover damages for libel. Demurrer to declaration.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by him in his profession as an educator resulting from the publication of a supposed libelous communication from the defendants, Booth, Eliason, Jr., and Deakyne, three of the four members of the Board of Education of New Castle Special School District, addressed to one Howard L. Wilhelme of New Castle, Delaware, and published in full by the News-Journal Company, in its newspapers, the Evening Journal-Every Evening, and in part in Wilmington Morning News.

The alleged libelous communication from the individual defendants to Wilhelme was as follows:

"April 14th, 1934.

"Mr. Howard L. Wilhelme, New Castle, Delaware.

"Dear Sir: At the meeting of the Board of Education held on April 4th, 1934, the resolution adopted at a meeting of citizens held March 27th, which you transmitted, was read, ordered spread upon the minutes and this reply authorized.

"The meeting on March 27th was large and representative but we have reason to doubt that many of the participants had familiarized themselves with the true reasons impelling the Board to the conclusion it had reached after most mature consideration.

"The meeting confined itself to a request that the Board reconsider its action and re-employ Mr. Snavely and made no effort to ascertain the reasons for the Board's action. Nevertheless, the Board is of the opinion that a summary of the events leading to its action should be presented.

"The fundamental differences between Mr. Snavely and the Board culminated in the early winter of 1933, as shown by a series of entries upon the minutes of the Board.

"A number of cases of pregnancy within the student body challenged the Board to action. Conferences were had with the heads of important schools in Wilmington--public and private, with the State Board of Education and with others whose entire life has been spent with the problems of the adolescent. As a result of these conferences the Board was of the opinion that some teaching of social hygiene should be inaugurated at our schools. The Board felt that this should include what may be called 'conventional morality' and should be conducted by persons whose special training peculiarly fitted them for this most difficult task.

"To the surprise of the Board the Superintendent insisted that he was the only proper person to conduct the course, asserting, 'to my knowledge it has never been proved that anybody in the State is more capable, in the field of social sciences, on any topic to which I am inclined to devote a strong effort.'

"The Superintendent expressly stipulated that even if any person, peculiarly fitted for the task, be employed to conduct the course in social hygiene, that he, the Superintendent, 'and members of the Staff reserve the right to neutralize any statements which appear to the Superintendent to be scientifically incorrect or socially unsound.'

"The Superintendent detailed his views of the course to be taught in the Schools which included the teaching of Birth Control to its extreme limit. He specifically advocated teaching 'to secondary school children the best methods of contraception.' He thus plainly advocated the teaching of sex matters, largely at least, from the viewpoint of protection from results of immorality, minimizing any teaching of morality itself, which he terms 'tribal traditions.'

"This attitude of mind is so fundamentally at variance with that of the Board that there is no common meeting ground.

"We are of the opinion that all teaching of morality or social hygiene must be founded on rectitude of individual conduct and purity of life and not be solely approached as a 'scientific procedure' as advocated by the Superintendent. In proposing a supplementary guidance program, he suggests drawing to his aid every organized body in the City excepting, specifically, every Church. We believe that the Churches, and especially in their resultant and in direct teachings are the strongest individual factors upon which success can be attained.

"So fundamentally different are our views that we cannot agree that the children of our community should be subjected to the teachings or influence of one whose mental approach to the subject is as outlined to us.

"The attitude of mind developed by views over his signature, supplemented by unbridled and unlicensed statements since the controversy has arisen, has entirely confirmed the majority of the Board in its opinion that a change in the Superintendency of the Schools is a necessity. While we recognize the good qualities of the Superintendent we trust and believe they are not confined to him alone but may be found in others occupying similar posts in the educational field.

"From the foregoing recital of the reasons which prompted the Board in their action and in view of the settled convictions of a majority of the Board it must be apparent that we cannot comply with the resolution forwarded to us and vote for the retention of Dr. Snavely.

"Very truly yours,

"N. T. Booth

"President."

The declaration contained two counts. The only material difference between them was with respect to the publication in the two newspapers. In the first count, the publication of the entire communication was averred to have been made in the Evening Journal-Every Evening; while in the second count certain excepts from the communication were averred to have been published in the Wilmington Morning News. Special damages were alleged.

General and special demurrers were filed, under which, with respect to the three individual defendants, it was contended, (1) that the action was one against an instrumentality of the state, and, therefore, against the state, (2) that the writing and publication of the letter were absolutely privileged and (3) that the publication was not libelous per se.

The demurrers are sustained.

James R. Morford (of Marvel, Morford, Ward and Logan) for plaintiff.

P. Warren Green, Attorney-General, and Clarence A. Southerland for defendants, Booth, Eliason, Jr., and Deakyne.

Aaron Finger (of Richards, Layton and Finger) for The News-Journal Company.

LAYTON, C. J., and HARRINGTON, J., sitting.

OPINION

LAYTON, C. J.

The tort complained of is the publication of the letter which is supposed to contain matter defamatory of the plaintiff in his profession as an educator. The sufficiency of the cause of action is attacked by demurrer.

The declaration discloses that, at the time of the publication, the plaintiff was superintendent of the public schools of a special school district, which position he had held for some years. The individual defendants were three of the four members of the board of education of the district. A number of cases of pregnancy in the student body were discovered, and the board determined to inaugurate a course in social hygiene, to be conducted by one having special training. The plaintiff expressed certain opinions with respect to the proposed course, as a result of which the board determined not to renew his contract as superintendent. At a meeting of citizens of the school district a resolution was adopted requesting the board to retain the plaintiff in his position, upon receipt of which, to explain its position, the board, acting by the three individual defendants, authorized the writing and publication of the letter which is the basis of this action.

Interesting and important questions are presented, but manifestly, if, as is contended by the defendants, the letter is not libelous, or not libelous per se, without proper averment of special damage, it need not be determined whether the action is one against the state, nor whether the defendants come within the protection of the rule of privilege, absolute or conditional.

Upon demurrer it is the province of the court to determine whether the words charged in the declaration amount to libel or slander. Lewis v. Daily News Co., 81 Md. 466, 32 A. 246, 29 L.R.A. 59; McDonald v. Lee, 246 Pa. 253, 92 A. 135, L.R.A. 1916B, 915; Diener v. Star, etc., Pub. Co., 230 Mo. 613, 132 S.W. 1143, 33 L.R.A. (N. S.) 216; Id., 232 Mo. 416, 135 S.W. 6; Woodruff v. Bradstreet Co., 116 N.Y. 217, 22 N.E. 354, 5 L.R.A. 555; Walker v. Tribune Co. (C. C.), 29 F. 827; Newell Sl. & Lib. (4th Ed.) 295; 17 R. C. L. 287; 37 C. J. 101, et seq.

The plaintiff denies the truth of certain of the statements contained in the letter which, he says, falsely and maliciously, charge him with lack of professional and moral aptitude, capacity, ability, conduct and influence, and he alleges that he has been injured and damaged in his professional reputation as an educator; that he is barred and precluded from professional association and contact with public and private educational bodies and with public educators; that he has lost his position as superintendent of the public schools of the special school district, the board of education refusing to renew his contract; and that he has been prevented from obtaining similar employment elsewhere.

From the plaintiff's brief, and from the oral argument, it is evident that the plaintiff, in the main, rests his right of action upon those statements relating to the teaching of the best methods of contraception as a part of a proposed course in what was called social hygiene.

In the declaration the falsity of the...