The freedom of criticism upon public men is confined to fair comment on their official acts and does not permit an assault on their private character ; Hallam v. Pub. Co., 55 Fed. 456. The imputation of base, un worthy, or corrupt motives is not privileged ; for the falseness of the charge is prima facie evidence of malice, and malice will render even the truth actionable ; Post Pub. Co. v. Moloney. 50 Ohio St. 71, 33 N. E. 921; nor does the right of criticism embrace any right to make a false statement of his acts, his integrity or faithfulness in the discharge of his duties ; Hay v. Reid, 85 Mich. 296, 48 N. W. 507. Memorials or pe titions addressed to those in authority pray ing for the removal of inferior officers, or the redress of fancied grievances, are prima facie privileged, and express malice must be shown before that privilege can be taken away; 6 C. & P. 548; White v. Nicholls, 3 How. (U. S.) 266, 11 L. Ed. 591; Van Wyck v. Aspinwall, 17 N. Y. 190; Kent v. Bongartz, 15 R. I. 72, 22 Atl. 1023, 2 Am. St. Rep. 876; if presented to the wrong party under a bona fide mistake, it will still be privileged; 5 B. & Ald. 642; 13 U. C. Q. B. 534; contra, 10 Q. B. 899 ; but if malice be shown, the mere fact that it is vented through a peti tion will not make the publication privileged; Howard v. Thompson, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 319, 34 Am. Dec. 238; Gray v. Pentland, 2 5.'& R. (Pa.) 23. Malice may be inferred when it is printed and circulated but never presented before the legislature; State v. Burnham, 9 N. H. 34, 31 Am. Dec. 217; the publication of falsehood and calumny against public offi cers or candidates for public office is an of fence most dangerouS to the people and de serves punishment, because the people may be deceived and reject the best citizens to their great injury ; Sillars v. Collier, 151 Mass. 50, 23 N. E. 723, 6 L. R. A. 680; Ran dall v. Evening News Ass'n, 79 Mich. 266, 44 N. W. 783, 7 L. R. A. 309 ; Cotulla v. Kerr, 74 Tex. 89, 11 S. W. 1058, 15 Am. St. Rep. 819; Field v. Colson, 93 Ky. 347, 20 S. W. 264.
With regard to candidates for public office, a somewhat broader license is allowed, as it is claimed that the very fact of candidacy puts, the character of the in issue, so far as his qualifications mall fitness for the office are concerned, and that the public have a right to be informed as to the char acter of those who seek their votes ; Com. v.
Clap, 4 Mass. 163, 3 Am. Dee. 212. In sable cases it is held that where there is an honest belief in the truth of the charges made, and. the publication is in good faith, one is not responsible, even for publishing an untruth; Bays v. Hunt, 60 Ia. 251, 14 N. W. 785; Ex press Printing Co. v. Copeland, 64 Tex. 354; Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 404, 2 Atl. 513, 56 Am. Rep. 274 ; but the weight of authority tends to uphold the principle that false al legations are not privileged, and good faith and probable cause constitute no defence; Post Pub. Co. v. Hallam, 59 Fed. 530, 8 C. C. A. 201; 8 C. & P. 222 ; Jones v. Townsend's Adm'x, 21 Fla. 431, 58 Am. Rep. 676; Com. v. Wardwell, 136 Mass. 164; Geo. Knapp & Co. v. Campbell, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 199, 36 S. W. 765; Wheaton v. Beecher, 66 Mich. 307, 33 N. W. 503 ; Mattice v. Wilcox, 147 N. Y. 624, 42 N. E. 270. See JUDGE. Charging a candidate for office with having violated the laws and taken unlawful fees is libellous per se. Although the charge was made on a proper occasion and from a proper motive, the defendant is liable when he not only fails to show the truth of the statement, but also that it was based on probable cause. It is not enough to show that the defendant had information which led him to believe it to be true ; the circumstances leading to that be lief must be shown in order that it may ap pear whether or not his belief was well founded ; Coates v. Wallace, 4 Pa. Super. Ct. 253.
In criticising a publication one may make I use of ridicule however poignant, as every man who publishes a book commits himself to the judgment of the public ; 1 Campb. 355 ; Dowling v. Livingstone, 108 Mich. 321, 66 N. W. 225, 32 L. A. 104, 62 Am. St. Rep. 702 ; but a critic may not attack the private char acter of the author; 7 C. & P. 621; 2 Moo. & R. 3.
If the author's writings are ridiculous he may be ridiculed ; if they show bim to be vicious his, reviewer may say so ; Cooper v. Stone, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 434; but to accuse one of writing and works cal culated to debauch and demoralize the pub lic mind is libellous; Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Ecclesine, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 9 ; and it is a question for the jury, whether a criticism of a dramatic work is such as might be pronounced by any fair man, however and however obstinate his views ;