Weiman v. Mabie

• Decision Date: 28 January 1881
• Citation: 45 Mich. 484,8 N.W. 71
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WEIMAN, Jr., v. MABIE and others.

8 N.W. 71

45 Mich. 484

WEIMAN, Jr., v. MABIE and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 28, 1881

Statements contained in an affidavit presented to a superintendent of schools for the purpose of preventing a teacher's license being granted to a particular person, charging such person with improper conduct, are privileged and not actionable unless untrue and maliciously made.

Error to Macomb.

Irving D. Hanscomb, for plaintiff in error.

James B. Eldredge, for defendants in error.

CAMPBELL J.

Plaintiff sued defendants for libel in publishing of him that he was a man of bad moral character, and wholly unfit to teach and have the care of a district school. This charge was made in an affidavit made by some of the defendants, and a petition of others directed to the superintendent of schools of the township of Lenox in Macomb county, and the papers were intended to prevent the licensing of Weiman as a teacher in the district where the signers lived. The declaration in addition to general damages averred that the plaintiff was thereby deprived of getting such license. The defence rested on the privileged character of the publication, and also averred by way of justification that Weiman was an habitual blasphemer and profane person and an open violator of the Sabbath by hunting, sports and in other ways.

On the trial there was no testimony tending to prove that these papers were got up for any purpose or used for any purpose except to be laid before the superintendent of schools to prevent his granting a license to Weiman. It also appeared that the papers were drawn by counsel as expressing properly the result of the charges of the parties which were detailed to him in full, and related mainly to the bad language and Sabbath-breaking acts of plaintiff, and that they were informed the papers were shaped as they should be for that purpose. It appeared further that in laying the papers before the superintendent they explained to him fully that their objections were the same before referred to and no other, and were accompanied with manifestations of an entire absence of personal ill will. There was evidence of his general good character in other respects. There was also evidence of his habitual use of profane and bad language before his scholars as well as elsewhere, and of such open and conspicuous Sabbath-breaking as offended his neighbors. There was some dispute concerning one or two acts, but...