The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-08-02
w. j. HUBBARD d Bro.
VS.. No. 2970.] :

VIM RuTLEDaE.
Error to the Circuit Court of Covington
county, Hon. A. G. Mayors, Judge.
Plaintiffs in error we're merchants, and
their store was consumed by fire, the same
being insured.
Thereupon defendant in error wrote q
letter to the insurance company Gin which
the plaintiffs were insured) to the effect
that it was well understood in the neighbor-
hood that plaintiffs burnt the store them
selves in order to get the insurance money,
and that he was confident that proof of that
fact could be made.
The company investigated the matter
and paid the money, Plaintiffs then
brought suit for damages against defendant
based upon said letter, alleging it to be
libelous.
Defendant claimed to havo written the
letter from pure motives, believing 1t to
be true, and to prevent the preparation of
great wrong on the company.
In impanneling the jury, plaintiffs OBJ
jected to one Berry as incompetent be-
cause he was at the time an employe of
defendant.
The court overruled the objection and
plaintiffs objected to him peremptorily.
During the trial, plaintiffs offered to in
terrogate defendant as to the effect of their
business on his, which the court refused to
allow.
The case resulting in verdict and judg-
ment for defendant, plaintiffs prosecuted
writ of error.
CAMPBELL, J.
Held
/. The juror, Berry, was not above all
exception as juror, and should have been
rejected by the Court. He was in the SER
vice of the defendant as. a clerk, and that
made him incompetent 1t is true he was
peremptorily challenged by the plaintiffs,
but this required one of their peremptory
challenges which were exhausted, as the
record shows, before the panel was COM
pleted
2. The refusal of the Circuit Court to
permit the defendant to be fully examined
by counsel for the plaintiffs as to the effect
of the business of plaintiffs as merchants
on his bsiness, was incorrect. The fullest
cross examination, calculated to elliott
statement of a true state of feeling on the
part OF the defendant towards plaintiffs
as rivals in business, should have been al
lowed.
8, The vital point in the case Is the foel-
ing which prompted the writing of the let
ter. The defense is that defendant acted
under an honestly entertained belief OF
the truth of what he wrote, and with the
innocent purpose to advise the insurance
company for its advantage, and in the in
terest of honesty and fair dealing. This is
the only defense which can shield him from
the Just consequences of the letter. Tho
Jury are to determine the sincerity of this
defense, and no obstacle should be thrown
in the way of the effort to test it by ascer-
tanning the relations between the defendant
and the plaintiffs, when the letter was writ
ten, with view to discern the motive
aetuating the writer, SO as to determine the
truth of his declaration as witness, that
he was not moved by malice to write the
letter.
4. The principles of law applicable TO
the facts of this case are plain and simple.
There is but single controverted question
in the case, !. e., the motive of
defendant in writing the letter and
the ground he had for making
the statement in it. He wrote it and it is
lbelous, and damages should be awarded &C.
cording to the judgment of the jury, unless
it should appear that the defendant acted
aud from good motives in writ
ing it.
5. 1t was the right of the defendant to
communicate the information he had to the |
Insurance Company, if his sole purpose |
was to do good by preventing the consum-
nation of wrong and injustice, but if he |
had no such information, or was not war; |
ranted in believing the truth of what he |
wrote, or made haste to communicate
false charge, where it might do harm, for
the purpose of doing injury, in some way,
to rival in business, or from any unworthy |
motive, his conduct deserves and should re-
ceive condemnation and punishment.
Reversed and remanded.