Harcourt v. Harrison

The only question raised at the trial was, whether the plaintiff had sustained any special damage, he having set forth such damage in his declaration, and having made it the foundation and gist of his action.

Now it clearly appeared that the defendant never was removed from his office, and of course the whole cause of complaint vanished, unless the words spoken were actionable per se. . It is not contended, on the part-of the plaintiff, that the words charged in the second and third counts were so proved as to make, it appear that the jury have found a verdict against the evidence on those counts: for the testimony of the plaintiff’s first witness is explained, if not contradicted and destroyed, by that of the first witness on the part of the defendant. The words charged in the first count are clearly not actionable in themselves, and the plaintiff, to sustain his action, must prove special damage as the consequence of the words. He failed totally in his attempt to do this, and his action therefore cannot be maintained.

I concur in the general conclusion, that the plaintiff’s motion must be denied; but I do not mean to say, that a public officer is screened in all cases by his official station from the consequences of slanderous charges, even if made in reference to his office, provided such charges are false and malicious. Here, however, the plaintiff has not shown such express malice on the part of the defendant, as would justify the Court in setting aside the verdict of the jury, and the motion must therefore be denied.

I shall not express any opinion upon the point last suggested; but I concur with my associates in their refusal to grant this motion, for the reasons which have already been given. The words proved are "not actionable per se, and the plaintiff failed wholly in his attempt to show special damage. Neither is there any clear evidence of malice on the part of the defendant ; and if we were to grant the position assumed by the *480plaintiff’s counsel, it is not sustained by his proof,[and the application for a new trial must be denied.

Motion denied.

[Hoffman and Tallman, Att’ys for the plff. W. P. Hawes, Att'y for the deft.]