Bottomly v. Bottomly

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the.Court. As this case comes before us, the ■ declaration contains only one count, and the question of its sufficiency is pre_ sented by a demurrer. This demurrer was sustained by the Court below, and the plaintiff has appealed. The declaration averred that the plaintiff was in the employment of one Chard, and stood high in his regard and esteem, and that the defendant had so great an influence over Chard that he was afraid to offend him, and that the defendant maliciously intending to alienate the regard and esteem of the said Chard from the plaintiff, and maliciously intending to effect his discharge by Chard from his employment, maliciously wrote and caused to be delivered to Chard a letter in the following words : “John (meaning the plaintiff) has said something hear of late which I (meaning-the defendant) do not like, and myself (meaning the defendant) nor Lethia (meaning defendant’s wife) shall never poot our foot on the place (meaning the property of said Chard) as long as he (meaning the plaintiff) stays their.

For they are to bad to mention.” The declaration further avers that by reason of the letter, and without any other reason whatever, Chard discharged the plaintiff from his employment, and the plaintiff lost his regard and esteem. The letter, mentioned in the declaration, stated to Chard the defendant’s displeasure at something which the plaintiff was alleged to have said. It was described as something ¹⁶¹ too bad to mention. The declaration does not aver that the defendant falsely charged the plaintiff with using the bad language attributed to him.

The law does not assume that the charge was false in the absence of an averment to that effect. It must pass judgment on the pleading according to the facts which it sets forth. A true statement in regard to plaintiff’s language certainly would not subject the defendant to a liability to damages. The plaintiff would have no legal cause of complaint if he were truly reported as having used very offensive language.

Nor can the defendant be regarded as culpable, because he expressed his indignation to be so great that he would have no intercourse with him, not even to the extent of visiting the place where the plaintiff was staying. A man certainly has a right to be indignant when foul language is used respecting him, and to make known to his friends and acquaintances and the public generally that his resentment is so great that he will not go to any place where he would be apt to meet the person who had offended him. This seems to be the overt act which has caused the damage of which the plaintiff complains. If the defendant’s letter had charged the plaintiff with conduct which would justly incur scorn and contempt, and would render him unfit for social intercourse; if it had even charged him with the commission of an atrocious felony, he could, nevertheless, maintain no action against the defendant if the charge should be proved true at the trial.

It is well known that the truth of the offensive words, written or spoken, is a complete justification for the use of them. The rules of practice require the justification to be specially pleaded. This is the technical form of presenting the defence on the face of the record; but this mode of proceeding is the result of another technical rule, and in no way detracts from the force and effect of the truth as an element in the case, which is destructive of the plaintiff’s right of action. We have implied, in what has been said, that the declaration did not show