Case Name: ARABELLA HAMBLETON SYMINGTON vs. ADA G. HAM
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1918-04-03
Citations: 132 Md. 701
Docket Number: 
Parties: ARABELLA HAMBLETON SYMINGTON vs. ADA G. HAM.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
ARABELLA HAMBLETON SYMINGTON vs. ADA G. HAM.
Libel and slander: privileged communications; effect of lack of evidence of actual malice.
Any communication made in good faith touching any matter in which the party making the communication has an interest or in reference to which he has a duty, whether legal, social or moral, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, is qualifiedly privileged, and in order to sustain an action for slander under such circumstances the plaintiff must prove that the communication was inspired hy actual malice,
"Whether the occasion on which the alleged defamatory statement was made was such as to render the communication a privileged one is for the court, as a matter of law, and the existence vel non of such malice should he submitted to the jury only when there is evidence tending to prove it.
Any defense which shows a rightful occasion and an authorized motive removes the legal presumption of malice, and puts upon the plaintiff the necessity of showing express malice.
In order to be privileged, a communication must he made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive and must ho based upon reasonable cause.
In an action of slander, the evidence showed that the alleged defamatory statement was made hy the defendant to the plaintiff in the assumed privacy of a dwelling; the plaintiff was the governess of the defendant’s children, and the accusation related to a matter concerning the health both of the children and of the plaintiff; the plaintiff’s evidence tending to show that the statement was in fact false and had been overheard hy a third person, hut there was no evidence that it was prompted by
improper motives or that the defendant made it ont of ill-will or spite against the plaintiff; in the absence of such evidence, it was held, that, assuming the publication and the falsity of the charge, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Decided April 3rd, 1918.
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. (Heuisleb, J.) Where there was a judgment for the plaintiff for $500.
The cause was argued before Boyd, C. J., Briscoe, Thomas, TTrneb, Stockbridge and Constable, JJ.
Henry H. Dinneen (with whom was W. Stuart Symington, Jr., on the brief), for the appellant.
J. CooTcma/n Boyd (with whom were Wm. Purnell Hall and Elmer H. Miller, on the brief), for the appellee.

Opinion:
Constable, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, reversing the judgment below without a new trial, with costs.