The bona fide statements of one church member on the trial of another, before a church tribunal, are privileged; Etchison v. Pergerson, 88 Ga. 620, 15 S. E. 680 ; Shurt leff v. Stevens, 51 Vt. 501, 31 Am. Rep. 698. They are said to have a qualified privilege; Pollock, Torts 253.
Freedom of speech in parliament is pro tected by the Bill of Rights; 1 W. & M. Sess. 2, c. 2.
In America, as in England, the defence of privilege, when applied to comment and criticism of the acts of public men, is con fined to facts as they actually happened, and does not extend to false assertions of fact; Hallam v. Pub. Co., 55 Fed. 456. See Jack son v. Pittsburgh Times, 152 Pa. 406, 25 Atl. 613, 34 Am. St. Rep. 659; Burt v. Newspaper Co., 154 Mass. 238, 28 N. E. 1, 13 L. R. A. 97.
An action will not lie against a judge for words spoken in his judicial capacity in a court of justice; L. R. 3 Ex. 220.
Unfounded insinuations made by coun sel against the prosecutor are privileged ; 11 Q. B. Div. 588; so are volunteered state ments of a witness involving a criminal charge against a person not connected- with the case under inquiry. Military courts stand in the same way; L. R. 7 H. L. 744; communications relating to affairs of state and passing between officials are absolutely privileged; Pollock, Torts 253; [1895] 1 Q. B. 888; as to whether military and naval re ports, not made in the cause of some judi cial inquiry, are absolutely privileged, or have only a qualified privilege, see L. R. 5 Q. B. 94. Fair reports of judicial and parliamentary inquiries are said to have an absolute privilege; Pollock, Torts 253.
A communication is privileged when made in good faith in answer to one having an interest in the information sought, and it will be privileged if volunteered, when the party to whom it is made has an interest in it and such party stands in such relation to him as to make it a reasonable duty, or at least proper, that he should give the infor mation.
"A communication which would otherwise be privileged, if made with malice in fact or through hatred, ill-will, and a malicious de sign to injure, is not a privileged communica tion, but the burden of proof is on the plain tiffs to show malice in fact." Erber v. Dun & Co., 12 Fed. 526; Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 404, 2 Atl. 513, 56 Am. Rep. 274. A mem ber of a legislative body cannot take ad vantage of his position to utter private. slanders against others; • McGaw v. Hamil ton, 184 Pa. 108, 39 Atl. 4, 63 Am. St. Rep. 786.
A physician's statements to a druggist in respect of a prescription wrongfully com pounded by the druggist are privileged un less malice is proved ; [1907] A. C. 708; and so of the report of a school committee; Haight v. Cornell, 15 Conn. 74; and the report of a road commissioner ; Pearce v. Brower, 72 Ga. 243. See De Arnaud v. Ainsworth, 24 App. D. C. 167, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 163, where it is said in a note that prob ably the leading American case, is Maurice v. Worden, 54 Md. 233, 39 Am. Rep. 384, where the endorsement by the superintend ent of the Naval Academy upon the resigna tion of a professor was held to be privileged only so far as to rebut the presumption of malice and cast upon the plaintiff the bur den of proving actual malice.
Independent books and documents of a de funct corporation, left with the attorney for the corporation by a client, are not a privi leged communication. They must be produc ed upon subpcena, even if they might in criminate the attorney; Grant v. U. S., 227 U. S. 74, 33 Sup. Ct. 190, 57 L. Ed. 423.
Information furnished by a charity organi zation society at the request of a person not a member, but who was interested, is a priv ileged communication ; 13 Cent. L. J. 432.
So are communications to a near relative re specting the character of a person with whom the relative is negotiating for a mar riage; 8 C. & P. 88 (but not by a stranger ; The Count Joannes v. Bennett, 5 Allen [Mass.] 170, 81 Am. Dec. 738); so where one communicated to an employer his suspi cions of dishonest conduct in a servant to wards himself ; 8 C. B. N. S. 597.
Other cases in which the privilege was sustained are statements by a school superin tendent of his reason for revoking the cer tificate of a teacher ; Rausch v. Anderson, 75 Ill. App. 526; a report of a committee ap pointed at a public school meeting to inves tigate the financial report of the school trus tees ; Lent v. Underhill, 54 App. Div. 609, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1086; the official report of the principal of a school to the city superintend ent concerning the work of a teacher ; Walk er v. Best, 107 App. Div. 304, 95 N. Y. Supp. 151 ; the report of a committee appointed by the governor of a state to investigate charg es against a state board of charities; In re Investigating Commission, 16 R. I. 751, .11 Atl. 429; a report of grand jurors to the court; Rector v. Smith, 11 Ia. 302; state ments by the superintendent of a city water department in response to an inquiry from his superiors ; Stevenson v. Ward, 48 App. Div. 291, 62 N. Y. Supp. 717 ; the report of a committee of aldermen appointed to investi gate charges against a saloon keeper, made in the of their official duty ; Weber v. Lane, 99 Mo. App. 69, 71 S. W. 1099; charg es by the superintendent of a state charita ble institution against the head of a depart ment under him; Hemmens v. Nelson, 138 N. Y. 517, 34 N. E. 342, 20 L. R. A. 440.
A publication by a newspaper of an article without inquiry is not privileged because re ceived from a regular correspondent ; Schuyl er v. Busbey, 68 Hun 474, 23 N. Y. Supp. 102. Communications between an applicant for a patent and the patent office touching an unis sued patent are not privileged ; Edison E. L. Co. v. Lighting Co., 44 Fed. 294.
As to statements made to commercial agen cies, see that title; [1908] A. C. 390 ; 14 Col. L. Rev. 187, article by Prof. Jeremiah Smith.
Whenever it is right, in the interest of society, for one person to communicate to another what he believes or has heard con cerning any person's conduct or character, it is a privileged occasion ; Poll. Torts 256; L. R. 5 Q. B. 11. Thus a solicitor to his client about the soundness of a security, or a fa ther to his daughter about her suitor ; Poll. Torts 256 ; a creditor of a firm in liquidation to another of its creditors as to a member of the debtor firm; L. R. 4 Ex. 232 ; communica tions addressed to a person in public posi tion relating to the redress of grievances; 5 E. & B. 344. Where the defendant dismissed the plaintiff from its service on account of gross neglect of duty, a statement by the de fendant to its servants of the reason for plaintiff's dismissal is a privileged communi cation. The occasion being privileged, the communication is so, unless the plaintiff can show that it was malicious; [1891] 2 Q. B.189.
In making privileged communications of a confidential kind, the failure to use the ordi nary means of insuring privacy will destroy the privilege ; L. R. 9 C. P. 393.
If the occasion be privileged the plaintiff must prove malice; that is dishonest or reck less To constitute malice there must be something more than the absence of rea sonable ground for belief ; Poll. Torts 262. See 8 Harv. L. Rev. 9 ; CONFIDENTIAL COMMU NICATIONS ; LIBEL ; MALICE ; JUSTIFICATION; SLANDER.