Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-10-22
usrEED STATES CrRcurr COUEr.
Important Decision with Regard 80 Wer-
Privileged.
REFnRE IrnGE NELSON

LeaDjs TdppGn Us. John and Horace
BcnrdSJcy. was suit against Tap
pan for libel and SANDER of the defend
sBts in respect to their credit as q mer-
camille firm, carrying on business in
NOrwalk, Huron county, Ohio. The
defendant resided in New York, and had
established in that city a mercantile
agency, the object of which was 70 pro-
cure Information Of the pecuDiary ability
and standing Of merchants in the cOun-
try for merchants in the city, to be COM
municated to the latter in a confidential
manner. The defendant had some twenty
clerks who participated in the business OF
the establishment, and were, Of course,
privy to the Information obtained,
whether favorable or UnfavOrable TO
the character and credit Of the country
merchant; and who participated in
the communications Of the Information
to their customers or customers clerks.
The defendant communicated through
his clerks to several customers and to
their clerks facts seriously affecting the
credit of the plaintiffs house and the
main question in the case, on the merits,
is whether or not be is exempt from the
consequences Of the publication, on the
ground of its privileged character. The
Court charged the jury that if the defend
ant himself had communicated the infOr-
nation to person applying to him for
the papers in good faith, the communica-
tiOn might have been privileged one
but that a publicity given to it by record
ing the li6ellOus words in q book TO
which others had access, and to whom
they were communicated, though stand
ing in the relation Of clerks, deprived the
communication Of its otherwise privi-
legged character. This is no doubt a very
important question and involves In its
practical operation, whichever way iJ
may be decided, interests Of very great
magnitude. On the one hand, to legalize
these establishments ia the manner and
to the extent used by the defendant, Is
placing one portion Of the mercantile
community under the organized system
Of espionage and inquisition for the
benefit Of the other, exposed, from the
very nature Of the organization, to per-
version and abuse; and, on the other, to
refuse to legalize them may be restrict
ing injuriOusly the right OF inquiring into
the character and standing of the GUS
toner asking for credit in his business
transactions. We are strongly inclined
to think, II the establishments are TO be
upheld st all, the limitation attached to
them by the Court below is not Unrea-
sOnabIe, to-Wit: that it must be an indi-
vidusl transaction, and not an establish
ment conducted by an unlimited number
Of partners and clerks. The principle
upon which privileged communications
rest, which, Of themselves, would other
wise be libelOss, imports confidence and
secrecy between individuals; and is in
consistent with the idea Of q commune
cation made by a society or congTega-
ton Of persons, or by private company
or corporate body, The other objections
in the case are technical in their charac-
ter, not involving the merits. We have
looked into them, and are OF opinion
they are not available to the defendant.
New trial denied.