The Portland daily press., 1896-03-02
THE COMMERCIAL SUSTAINED.
New Trial Granted by Judge Foster-It,s
Language in Regard to Builders of the
City Hall Deemed Proper.

The libel suit OF the builders Of the
Bangor City hall against the Bangor
Commercial, for critioising the oonstruc.
tion of the building, was recently tried
at Auburn and verdict was rendered
against the newspaper. The law court
has now granted new trial, holding
that the language printed by the Com
mereiai was justifiable and proper. The
rescript follows:
Androscoggin, IS.
Samuel r. Bearce ct al, VS.. Joseph P.
Bass ct al.
Foster, 1.-THE plaintiffs had contract
ed to build the Bangor city hall, puplic
building designed to be used and occu-
pied by the government of the city for
public purposes, estimated to cost one
hundred thousand dollars. While the con-
struotion of this building was in progress
an raticle WINS published by the defen-
dants in their paper, and that portion of
which, claimed to be libellous, is as fol-
lows:
"The mason work is of the porest quail
ity and 1t should not be accepted by the
city. Too much sand has been used in
the mortar, and to such an extent that
it dogs not prevent the alkah, which is
the sl;s of the mortar, from running out
as 'sa4 be seen by the white appearance
Of bks building. Very many of the bricks
are loose, the mortar being too lifelegs to
hoiC Them together. and the contractors
should be obliged to take down and re-
place the imperfect sections OF the wall
THE doings of the old Tweed ring in
New York were no worse than much that
has been done in connection with our
city building
Held; That the language complained
OF was but fair and reasonable criticism
upon the work which entered into the
construction of this public building, and
canssralAaed no attack upon the character
OF tine plaintiffs. either as individuals or
in their business as contractors,
The character of the construction of
such building was matter of public
Importance and interest to the inhabi-
tants and tax payers, and was therefore
matter of legitimate public discussion
by the defendants as we'll as all others
who had, in common with the rest of the
oommunity,a public and private pecun-
iary interest in this important public
work.
Every one has right to comment on
matters OF public interest and concern,
provided be does SO fairly and with an
honest purpose. Such comments or criti-
clsm are not libelous, unless they are
wr1tfsn maiiciously, or there is averment
and proof Of special damage, OF unless they
There is material difference between
criticisms or attacks upon public work,
and upon the individual.
livery man has right to discuss freely
SO long as he does it honestlyand without
malice, any subject in which the pub
lie are generally interested, and to state
his own views for the consideration of all
or any Of those who have common in
terest in tho subject.
30 long as the criticism is confined to
the Work and does not attack the moral
ohaEa3 Jsr or professional integrity of the
lncivia2gal. and is fair and reasonable,
1t is No, libeious. because it is no defa-
nation OF the individual.
But when the comment or criticism of
Inc mans work becomes an attack on his
private or business character, theE the
element OF malice comes in and stamps
the language AS lihelous.
Language cannot become libelous where
the malice Is shown to be against the pri-
vate OF business reputation of some per-
son other than the plaintiffs, no matter
TO what extent Such malice may exist.
In regard to matters of public interest
all that is necessary to render the words
spoken or published privileged is, that
they should be communicated in good
1aath, without malice, to those who have
an Interest in the subject to which they
refer, and in an honest belief that the
ID uEuo, suoA po1lo1 UoluB
founded on reasonable and probable
grounds. When the matter complained
OF is privileged, the burden of proving
mailoe lies on the plaintiff, and the de-
PENDANT cannot be called on to prove
that be was not actuated by malice until
some evidence of malice towards the
plaintiff. more than mere scintilla, has
been abducted by the plaintiff.
The odioe Of an lnnuendo Is to explain
what is already expressed, but not to en-
'arRe or change the sense of the previous
ords.
Motion sustained. New trial granted.
The law court has also affirmed the de-
ion OF the court below in the case of
inslow B. Marston Va. Nelson Dinghy,
Jr and Others, publishers of the Lewis
ton Journal, The Journal published
picture OF Mr. Sprague which he alleged
to be caricature and sued the Journal
for libel. He failed to obtain verdict
IN NJ .s< 1