The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-07-30

Can municipal corporation maintain m
action for an alleged libcl2 This question
has arisen in England and appears to be a
now one there as 1t is in this country
Tho Lancet recently published an article con.
corning tho drainage and sewerage OF
Brighton. 1t warned intending visitors to
ascertain that measures had actually been
taken to remove or close the street ventila-
tors and disconncct the main sewers from
the house drains before exposing themselves
and their families to the peril OF blood poi
soning ut the celebrated watering place on
the south coast of England. The writer de-
clared the existing system OF drainage In the
town TO be radically defective, and said no
further delay in changing it should be toler-
atcd; the practical question for visitors was
not how many persons died of blood poison
ing there, but how many came away with
their systems impregnated with sewer gas
and their vital powers lowered.
All Brighton was thrown into ferment by
this publication. OF course it excited appre-
tensions OF danger in the minds of those who
had intended to visit the place as n sanitary
resort There can be little doubt that it kept
many persons away. The residents whose
business 1t Is to lodge, feed, and entertain
visitors. Jaw their prospective profits fading
swav under the inaue,,.."a Of the warning
uttered by the best known medical journal
in the world. They invoked the interference
OF the Mayor and Corporation. Tho Mayor
and Corporation retained the services OF
Messrs. BoxALL and BoXALL-these names
might have been taken out OF the Pickwick
Papers-and Messrs. BoxALI and BoyALh
wrote aletter to the proprfetors Of the Lancet,
demanding contradiction of the differences
that must be drawn from the article which
their clients complained OF as libellous.
Messrs. BoXALL and BoXALL gave no time
for compliance with their demand, how
ever, but began a suit on the same day their
letter was dated.
The rule of law laid down in the text books
and derivabe from the reported cases on the
subject is that corporation may sue for q
libel upon it, as distinguished from libel
upon its individual members. Thus libel
suits have been maintained by insurance
companies in New York, New Jersey, and L.
linois. The authorities generally agree, how
ever, that, unless the plaintiff corporation is
engaged in business, special damage must be
shown in order to warrant any recovery. As
to a corporation which is not engaged in
business, there is no presumption that any
language is necessarily productive of pecu-
mary injury; and where such q corporation
sues it is bound to prove actual damage, how
| suffered, and to what amount.
| 1t is not easy to see precisely how the
Mayor and Corporation of Brighton will be
able to show that they have been injured as
q municipal body by the criticisms OF the
| Lancet. even if the statements OF that journal
| concerning the towns drainage are untrue.
The real sufferers, as we have pointed out,
are the individual inhabitants whose liveli-
hood depends upon the attraction of the place
for visitors. 1t may be argued that the
municipal corporation is entitled to sue in a
representative capacity for these very people
but this view is not likely to meet with favor
| Our courts have held that hose company in
this city could not recover damages for an
alleged libel charging that hat had been
stolen by some Of its members, without any
specification OF individuals.
Since the suit against the Lancet was
begun, report upon the sanitary condition
OF Brighton has been made by Sir JOSEPH
BAzALaETTE, an eminent engineer, who
recommends changes far more extensive ant
costly, says that Journal than any which il
ever contemplated.