York v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 09 January 1875
• Citation: 116 Mass. 482
• Parties: Frances S. York v. Samuel H. Johnson
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

116 Mass. 482

Frances S. York v. Samuel H. Johnson

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 9, 1875

Argued October 1, 1874

Worcester.Tort for slander.The third count of the declaration was as follows: "The plaintiff further says that the defendant publicly, falsely and maliciously accused her of the crime of adultery, by words spoken of the plaintiff substantially as follows: 'I (meaning the defendant) was speaking to a certain lady about Mrs. York or Mrs. York's case (meaning the accusation that Mrs. York, the plaintiff, had a loathsome venereal disease of some kind and had given it to a married man by the name of Charles Walton,) and I said, what should you think of a lady who belongs to the Congregational Church (meaning the Congregational Church in Shrewsbury) if she should give the pox (meaning a loathsome venereal disease of that name) to a married man, and he should give it to his wife.She(meaning the person with whom he was talking) replied that she should not think her fit to belong to the church, and I, (meaning the defendant,) in answer thereto said that is the case or our case,'(meaning the above accusation against the plaintiff.")

The defendant demurred on the ground that the allegations in the third and fourth counts did not constitute a charge of an accusation on the part of the defendant that the plaintiff had committed the crime of adultery.

The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant filed an answer containing a general denial, and also alleging that whatever words were spoken were true and privileged.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen J., it appeared that the plaintiff and the defendant were members of the same church, that the plaintiff was a singer in the choir and a teacher in the Sunday-school, that the defendant was one of the board of stewards in the church but not a member of the Sunday-school.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, for several months prior to the time of the alleged slander, had by her conduct and deportment shown an intimacy with Charles Walton who was also a singer in said church, and that there were rumors in the neighborhood of her sustaining relations with him of an improper character; and that one Foster, a physician, who was also a member of the same church, had told the defendant and others in the church that he was doctoring Walton for a venereal disease, and that he had no doubt he had contracted it from the plaintiff; that he told the defendant that he did not know where Walton did contract the disease, but that he, Walton, had been with the plaintiff.It further appeared that a short time before Christmas, 1872, an effort was made to have a Christmas festival for the Sunday-school of the church, and that at a meeting of those interested a committee was chosen for that purpose; that at that meeting the plaintiff nominated Walton as one member of said committee, and Walton nominated the plaintiff as another; that they together with the defendant, Dr. Foster Mrs. Sarah J. Newton, another member of the church, and others were chosen on the committee.The defendant declined to serve with them on the committee.A few days after, Mrs. Newton asked the defendant why he declined to serve on the committee, to which he replied that he did not choose to answer.The next day she inquired again his reason, asking if Rev.Mr. Bemis, the pastor, and his wife were not good enough for him to serve with.The defendant, however, did not then give his reasons; and the following day she urged him again to give her a reason for his not serving, saying that she knew that the fact that Walton and the plaintiff were on the committee was the reason, and with a good deal of feeling wanted to know what he knew with reference to them why they were not suitable persons to be on the committee.In answer the defendant said to her, "Walton has got the clap."Mrs. Newton asked the defendant where he, Walton, got it, to which the defendant replied, "My informant said he did not know, but that he, Walton, had been with Mrs. York."

The defendant contended and asked the judge to rule that under the above circumstances the communication to Mrs. Newton was a privileged one, and that if made in good faith, believing it, and in the discharge of a duty which he believed he owed to the members of the committee and to himself, it would not be actionable, without proof of express malice.

The judge ruled that the communication to Mrs....