Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1873-04-01
Is i. Court--March Term, 1878.
pANroRTH, J. PRRsIpISG.
THE SANDER SUIT.
Sarah Ann Heath VS.. Leonard II. Max

famous Islander case, many ladies, being
present.
A special jury was empanclled. under
the Statutes, Oour talismen being return
ed) as follows: t IL -LtsE
James t. Clark, Paris, Foreman; Cy-
rus Andrews, Lowell; Lucius 1. Bartlett,
Norway; Joseph l.. Chapman, Andover;
julius +. Fuller, Oxford; Samuel FRYE,
Fryeburg; Nath1 b. Hodsdon. Water
ford; San'l ID. Marshal, Paris Charles
+. Durell, Oxford; Thomas Il. Stearns.
Paris; Charles F. Cummings, Paris.
This was an action tor SANDER against
the defendant who is a physician by pro-
lession. PHI. resides in Sumner-Delt.
in Hartford Tho alleged sianderous
words were spoken in town meeting IN
1872. by the def. as member oil The
School Committee. in making report OF
the plaintiffs school at said meeting.
The slanderous words were in charging
the plaintiff, who is teacher by probes
sion, with using intoxicating liquors TO
excess, carrying the bottle TO school
with her, and teaching her scholars never
to marry a man unless he would pledge
himself to have wine furnished for The
table every day. The allegations in the
suit were proved to have been spoken
by the defendant outside Of his written
school report. The plaintiff proved that
she had just recovered from fever oil
the ting she commenced teaching III
Hartford. and that her physician ordered
her to use California wine till she got en-
,irely well; that all the wine she used
during the whole school was one bottle,
and that of the mildest kind that she had
trouble In her school and the committee
came in and refused To turn her out, but
complimen,ed her highly and The de-
PENDANT being one OF the board, has WIS.,
tied her school three different times and
eulogized her in her school each time
that when he came to learn OF the report
OF her using intoxicating liquors from
those with whom she had had trouble,
he went into town meeting and there
spoke the slanderous words alleged in
the plaintiffs suit. The defendant is .
radical temperance man, and set up in
defence that the words spoken were
privileged communications which he had
a right TO make rs his duty, rs one OF the
school committee authorized him 10 do;
that size was accustomed to make use OF
wine at her boarding place, and on sew.
eral occasions had carried il TO her
school and tasted 1t at recess or in the
morning before school commenced; that
he had good reason 10 believe what he
heard, and was justified in making the
report he did, and what he said further,
wa, drawn out by enquiries. and was
simply explanatory. The plaintiff in reply
claimed that the words were spoken in
malice, and that the defendant sought to
crafty hi. III will by speaking OF Der as
he did ia town meeting.
The following is the written Report,
relative to Pits school, made by the def
in town meeting:
DISTRICT NO. 4.
The winter term was taught by Miss
Anna Heath. OF Sumner.
Some OF the scholars in this school,
made good improvement. especially IN
Geography; but am sorry 10 say that
Mr.. Caleb Thomas saw lit 10 take has
scholars out OF school. There was
great deal said about il. but as have
been accused OF being first on one side,
and then the other, here i the proper
place to express my opinion, and shall
do so because it is my duty. Alter hear
ing the stories on both sides, became
convinced that Mr.. Thomas had just cause
for removing his scholars from school.
thought the school was not profitable TO
the District, and advised Mr.. Thomas TO
call in the ). ). Committee. lie did so,
but failed TO convince my colleagues That
Miss Heath should be dismissed from The
school. He did not prove what expect
ed he would-indeed his strongest points
were not mentioned Ii he had proved
what he might have done, think she
would have lett The school. DO not
think that Miss Heath is fit 10 teach any
school while her habits are what 1 have
good reason 10 believe that they are now
shall never permit any person TO tesch
school when il is in my power TO prevent
il, who is in the habit OF using intoxicat.
ing drinks 10 excess, or who can take
more whiskey at once than any temper
ance man can walk straight with. l DO
not believe that the greatest opponent oil
the Maine Law in this town would want
MS daughters taught that all the best
society. everybody that is anything iur.
nishes liquors for their tables. and that
they should never marry any man who
would not furnish his table with liquor
every day.
CHARGE Or THE JUDGE.
Judge Danforth said the case was one
calculated to excite feelings on both
sides. 1t is m action of Slander-
not oil Libel. Between the two a very
wide difference exists. language written
will support an action, sometimes. when
spoken, i. would not Language written
subjects person TO an Indictment
language spoken never does. So far rs
the written report is concerned, if I'M
true. ii might sustain an action for Libel,
4 n T. ..r.sf hat a n
should make a discrimination. The Re.
port is put in by def not plff. The ac-
ton is brought for words spoken, not
written. Two causes of action are set