The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-05-28
THE MASSEY pilot SUIT.
Judge Prentjs, Of the Circuit
Court Hands Down His Opinion.
Zone May in Good Faith Publish a
Truth Concerning Public Off
GER, But if He Stated That
Which is False and Aspersive
He is Liable Therefor"

ing opinion on the pleas:in the Massey
Pilot case, which were argued before
him a. few days since:
Circuit Court OF TIE City Of Norfolk.
John f. Massey
Vs.
The Pilot Publishing Company and
others
l. The defendants. the Pilot Pub.
fishing Company, Samuel w. Small
and Richard E. Byrd, have rendered
plea IN bar of the action, that the pub.
location complainedEof is privileged,
because 1t referred TO the official acts
of til Q plaintiff as public officer. aver
ring that they have only commented
on and criticised such acts fairly.
honestly snd without malice, and that
they believed aud had reasonable cause
10 believe that the statements contained
in the publication were true.
Tho plaintiff has moved to reject
this plea alleging that it contains no
legal defence in bar of the action.
This raised sharp aud distinct
question of law about which there has
been some conflict of authority.
Can an action based upon all al.
legged libel charging q public official
with corruption in office be barr ed by
pleading and proving that the defend.
ant had no actual malice and believed
the charge to be true?
Some authority for an affirmative
answer TO this question may be found
in certain decisions in PENNSYLVANIA.
Minnesota, Texas, Iowa and Kansas.
The reasoning OF these courts is en-.
tIrely unsatisfactory, though IN Penn.
sylvania and Texas the cases are con-
tiicting snd can hardly be reconcled
with each other. They are certainly out
of harmony with the great weight OF
English and American authority.
They appear to leave the character of
o public official almost ut tho mercy OF
any malignant, ruthless or careless
libeler, who chooses to assert the priv
lege aud justify the libel by claiming
that lie had no malice and that he had
Just cause for believing the charge to
be true.
On the other hand, the better opin.
Ion; the view most oonsonant with rea-
son, justice and sound public policy;
and that sustained by the great pre-.
ponderance OF authority, is. that the
private character OF u public official is
Rs we'll protected against libel as the
character of the private Citizen. IPar.
meter v. Coupland Meeson Y W.,
los; Wilson v. Reed Foster N F., l49;
Campbell v. Spottiswoode B Best & S.,
769; Onslow We. Home . w. Black. TOO;
Harwood v. Astiey l Bosnnquet n p.
N. H., At; Parkhurst v. Hamilton 3
Times l.. r., 900; Duncombe v. Daniel
8 Darlington e. p, 222.
The same view Inns been maintained
and emphasized by the highest courts
OF New York, massachusetts, Michigan.
Wisconsin, Maryland. Kentucky, New
Jersey, Tennessee. Indiana, West Vir.
ginia, Floridn. Ohio and Illinois. in
cases too numerous to be cited here.
lone may in good faith publish truth
concerning public officer, but if he
states that which ia false aud sspersive,
he Is liable therefor, however good his
motivo."-[H Hamilton v. Emo 81 New
York 116.
The acts of officers maybe subjected
30 severe criticism, the weapons of sar-
cRsm and ridicule may be freely used
without lisbility for libel. II is not So
With their private character and mo.
tives.
These may not be aspersed except at
the peril of the publisher. He NAV
escape this peril by showing the truth
of his aspersions. Public officials
mny be freely criticised, but they may
not be maligned.
Sometimes it is difficult to draw the
line between criticism and defamation.
but the principles applicable to each
are we'll defined. In pursuance of a
sound public policy, criticism, if
not malicious, is privileged, whether
ahe CRITICISM is just or unjust. De-
1amatlon of q public officer ia never
privileged. 1t is not necessary to de-
lend an action for adverse criticism by
: plea, because it may be done by de.
murrer.
It follows, therefore, that the motion
10 reject the plea must be sustained,
Nothing that has been said, now.
ever, In rejecting this plea, which as.
2 serts quotifacd Ioriciiege. must be
construed as denying the we'll estab.
hshed doctrine that all of tho sur.
rounding circumstances attending the
publication may he proved by the de.
PENDANTS, to, negative the inference OF
actual malice in the publisher, and in
mitigation OF the damages.
2. The defendant, Samuel w.
Small, has offerad plea that "a mana.
glng editor of the newspaper he had
The right to make the publication com.
planned Of, by reason of the constitu.
sional provisions securing the 'sfree.
dom OF the press.
The plaintiff has alao moved to re.
ject this plea.
according to Lord Manefeld, "tbe
liberty of the press consists IN print.
Ing without any previous license. Sub.