PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. Com munications made bona fide upon any sub ject-matter in which the party communicat ing has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contain matter which without this privilege would be defamatory and actionable.
Duty, in this canon, cannot be confined to legal duties, which may be enforced by indictment, action, 'or mandamus, but must include moral and social duties of imper fect obligation ; 5 E. & B. 347. The proper meaning of a privileged communication, said Baron Parke, is only this : that the occasion on which the communication was made rebuts the inference prima facie aris ing from a statement prejudicial to the char acter of the plaintiff, and puts it upon him to' prove that there was malice in fact,—that the defendant was actuated by motives of personal spite or independent of the occasion on which the communication was made; 2 Cr. M. & R. 573. So, also, in Lewis v. Chapman, 16 N. Y. 373. See Lowry v.
Vedder, 40 Minn. 475; 42 N. W. 542; Chaf fin v. Lynch, 83 Va. 106, 1 S. E. 803; White v. Nicholls, 3 How. (U. S.) 287, 11 L. Ed. 11 591; [1891] App. Cas. 78; Brown v. Vanna man, 85 Wis. 451, 55 N. W. 183, 39 Am. St. Rep. 860.
The law recognizes two classes of cases in which the occasion either supplies an absolute defence, or a subject to the condition that the party acted bona fide without malice. The distinction turns en tirely on the questiou of malice. The com munications last mentioned lose their privi lege on proof of express malice ; Erber v. Dun, 12 Fed. 526. The former depend in no respect for their protection upon the bona fides of the defendant. The occasion is an absolute privilege, and the only questions are whether the occasion existed, and whether the matter complained of was perti nent to the occasion ; Heard, Lib. & S. § 89. See Webb, Pollock, Torts 335 ; Odg. SI. & L. 184; Ramsey v. Cheek, 109 N. C. 270, 13 S. E. 775.
As to communications which are thus ab solutely privileged, no person is liable, either civilly or criminally, in respect of anything published by him as a member of a legisla tive body, in the course of his legislative duty, or in respect of anything published by him in the course of his duty in any judicial proceeding. This privilege extends not only
to parties, counsel, witnesses, jurors, and judges in a judicial proceeding, but also to proceedings in legislative bodies, and to all who, in the discharge of public duty or the honest pursuit of private right, are com-1 gelled to take part in the administration of justice, or in legislgtion.
Allegations in pleadings imputing criminal or fraudulent acts to the opposite party, if pertinent, are absolutely privileged and can not be made the ground of an action for libel; McGehee v. Ins. Co., 112 Fed. 853, 50 C. C. A. 551. Likewise words uttered by a judge in the course of judicial proceedings with reference to the case before him ; 4 F. 783, Sc. a. of Sess. ; and an official report of an executive or administrative officer; De Arnaud v. Ainsworth, 24 App. D. C. 167, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 163; Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 16 Sup. Ct. 631, 40 L. Ed. 780; a city council resolution ; Wachsmuth v. Bank, 96 Mich. 427, 56 N. W. 9. 21 L. R. A. 278 ; a mayor's written veto message; Trebil cock v. Anderson, 117 Mich. 39, 75 N. W. 129; and statements made by a witness to one of the parties and his attorney in pre paring proofs for trial ; [1905] A. C. 480. But facts furnished by a client to his attor ney and incorporated in a petition which are misleading and defamatory and are foreign to the object of the suit are not privileged; Wimbish v. Hamilton, 47 La. Ann. 246, 16 South. 856.
A fair report of any judicial proceeding or inquiry is privileged ; Heard, Lib. & S. § 90, 103, 110; Odg. Lib. & S. *185; but to be privileged it must be an accurate and im partial account of what actually occurred; Post Pub. •Co. v. Mbloney, 50 Ohio St. 71, 33 N. E. 921. A report to a newspaper of ju dicial proceedings, if made by an outsider, is actionable if made from motives of personal hostility ; 5 Ex. Div. 53. See Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. Ryan, 46 III. App. 313; Randall v. Hamilton, 45 La. Ann. 1184, 14 South. 73, 22 L. R. A. 649 ; [1893] 1 Q. B, 65.