Trebilcock v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 17 May 1898
• Citation: 117 Mich. 39,75 N.W. 129
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: TREBILCOCK v. ANDERSON.

75 N.W. 129

117 Mich. 39

TREBILCOCK v. ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 17, 1898

Error to circuit court, Gogebic county; Norman W. Haire, Judge.

Action by William Trebilcock against Andrew E. Anderson for libel. From a judgment directed for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Charles E. Miller, for appellant.

John D Barry (T. E. Tarsney, of counsel), for appellee.

HOOKER, J.

In December, 1894, the defendant was mayor of the city of Ironwood, and the plaintiff had been his predecessor for three years, ending in the spring of 1894. Previous to December, 1894, there was organized in that city an association called the "Taxpayers' Union." A short time before December 4, 1894, this organization presented to the common council of the city a request for the privilege of holding its meetings in the common council chambers, and a resolution granting it was adopted by unanimous vote of the aldermen. Within 24 hours, the defendant filed a written message, addressed to the common council, announcing the veto of the resolution authorizing the use of the council rooms, and giving what purported to be reasons therefor. This message afterwards appeared in the official organ (i. e. newspaper) of the city. Thereupon this action for libel was brought.

In opening the case, counsel for the plaintiff said, after stating the foregoing facts, that "we expect to show that the publication of this paper by the defendant in this case was malicious, and intended to injure the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has suffered damage thereby. The alleged libel, known as the 'veto message,' I hold in my hand, and ask to have treated as a part of this opening. We do not expect in this case to prove any other publication than the writing by the mayor of the so-called 'veto message,' the presenting it to the city clerk, its publication by being read by the city clerk in the common council, and its subsequent publication by being published in the official paper of the city. We expect to show no other publication by the defendant." An objection was made to the introduction of any testimony, upon the ground that the writing was "absolutely privileged." The learned circuit judge sustained the objection, and directed a verdict for the defendant.

There are two views that may be taken of this writing, and the circumstances under which it was published, i. e. filed First, that it was conditionally privileged; second,...