The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-07-30
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands,
July Term. 1854.
]. I. wlrEHuousr vs.. ]. d. SrHHcKrIs AND
W. G. IBvTS.

This is an action on the case 10 recover $1,000
damages resulting TO plaintiff for injury done by
the defendants to the character, feelings and rep
utation Of the plaintiff The deolaratlon Alleges;
l. That for thirty years and upwards the plaint-
il has carried on and still carries on the business
Of a general merchant, importer and retail store
keeper in the city of Honolulu.
2 That in the year 1854 the plaintiff had certain
disputes and differences with one W. L. Green, n
merchant then and now residing in Honolulu.
3. That in order TO settle and arrange the said
disputes and differences, the plaintiff wrote and
sent a letter TO the said W. l. Green, copy wtre-
of IL annexed to the complaint marked "a
4 That By the said letter the plaintiff authorized
Mr.. Green, but no other person, to PRINT and cir
culAte, should he,so desire. one hundred copies,
bui no more Of the said letter.
3 That on the 9TH day of June OF this year. the
defendants, intending 10 lnJure the character'
feelings and reputation OF the plaintih dld with
out the knowledge or consent of the sad W. l..
Green or of the plaintiff. vrougfuily and injur-
iously print publish and circulate, cause to be
printed, published and circulated large number,
that is TO say several hundred copies OF the said
letter and did 50 wrongtully and inlunously cause
the said copies Of the said letter TO be distributed
and delivered to divers residents of Honolulu and
other persons residing in this Kingdom.
All OF which actions and toinCs by the defend
ants, the plaintiff alleges were done IN coniraven-
tion of his private rights under the laws, and to
the damage of the plaintiff to the amount claimed.
The defendants demur and say that the CON-
nlntut II lusuLlClHul law anu
!. That the complaint does not allece that the
letter published is untrue or defamatory.
. No special damages can be recovered for noue
are alleged to have resulted
g. General damage cannot be presumed IRON
publishinc the truth. TIE truth Is complete
and perfect answer 10 a civil suit for libel.
Townsend on Libel; p. 2ii
Odgers on Libel. p. l6s
1. The plaintiff cannot recover nominal dam
nqes for be has no property IN the letter. IL Is
Mr. Green, the receivers property. The letter has
no literary value II II had, 1t has been given TO
the world by the writer and he has not secured its
copyright.
in the case Of Green vs.. WaterhOuse and no action
is maintainable for such pubcatlon.
6. The complaint contains no allegation Of in-
jury TO plaintiffs business.
The publication may have been 'oticious, inter-
meddling and annoying but these elements will
not support an action. Nor II published, with IN
tent TO injure.
Z. The truth is a lustincation ~ libel though
the motive be malicious.
Against these views the plaintiff counsel urge;
/ In this case 1t Is clear that the words of the
letter were of and concerning the plaintiff person
ally in his business; and also that the publication
directly tends TO injure the fame, reputation and
good name Of the plaintiff within the statutory
definition of a libel
But the falseness Of the letter is not to be
Ayerred and therefore 1t is possible that the pres
eut case cannot be classified technically an &c
ton for libel. But It comes within all the evils
which actions for libel are meant to prevent. 1t
contains all the legal ingredients OF tort and Is
not daBtHisis abSgHe faiHHFSu-
. The declaration conforms to our statutory
form. 1t AYERS an intent to do the injury and an
unauthorized act done whereby injury has result
ed to the plaintiff character reputation and feel
ings, and the act is which tends TO lnlure the
plaintiffs business
.. The truth of the publication il not always n
defense in a civil action.
1. Even Nj. Green would be liable for publish
ing over one hundred copies But 1t does not iaP-
pear that he published any. Defendants publ
cation of the letter for maley0lent purpose was
more than offciOus intermeddling with private
affairs, il was a tort
:. The receiver Of letter cannot publish 1t with
out leave of the sender. An injunction would IS
sue TO restrain such wrongful act. The amount
of damage for the wrong committed Is immaterial
in this discussion.
6. The old theory for the necessity of averrinG
special damages was that they were required to be
ayerred when not presumed in order to prevent
surprise to the defendant But as proof of dam.
age where the words published are defamatory
and actionable per would be TO less a surprise,
it shows that the theory Is not based principle
and ought not to be adopted.
T. publication may be true and yet be libel.
To rake up n buried feud, TO spread before the
community statement which was made by ono
of the parties to that feud for the sole purpose of
ending ii, and TO do so for the malicious purpose
of injuring such person, and more especially when
such publication necessarily tends to affect inlur
iOusy his business, reputation and feelings, Is
wrong. and 1t would be a reproach TO system
of law based solely right reason, 10 say OF such
malicious injury that 1t has no remedy unless its
effect can be shown 10 have been to wiring dollars
out of the plaintiff.
s Equity will restrain the unauthorized publi-
cation OF private letters the ground of violation
Of confidence and injury 70 the feelings.
Cooley on TOrts, pages 3j6 3.
Kerr, Ini, pages 1873,
Pomeroy' Eq. JUS Sec. 1853.
St0rvfs Eu. Jus.. Secs BIG and 9AS.