Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/631

 ORANE V. WATER3. 619 �Cbane ». Wateks and others. {Circuit Court, B. Massachusetts. February 23, 1882.) �1. LiBEL — PbIVILEGBD COMMUNICATIONS. �In discussing the subject of a scheme or plan for making a railroad by the consolidation of certain short Unes, and to obtain control of a certain railroad Company by eleoting directors favorable to the scheme, a public speaker or writer has the qualifled privilege which attaches to public aliairs. �2. Same— Chaeactbr dp CousTRUCTon op Railroads. �In such discussions the character of the constructor and manager of rail- roads is open to public discussion when his plana afiEect many intereats besides thoae of the stockholders of one road. �3. Same — Distinction bbtween Pubuc and Pritatb Intbrests. �The distinction between the puDlic and private aSairs of a railroad is this ; When a railroad is to be built, or a company to be chartered, the question •whether it shall be authorized is a public one ; but when the company is or- ganized and the stock issued, anything which merely aft'eots the value of the stock is private. �4. Samb — Truth as a Dbfbncb. �In discussions in good faith, of the punlic conduct and qualifications of pub- lic men, the defendant, it appears, is noi held to prove the exact truth of his statemenls and the aonndness of his interences, provided that he is not actu- ated by express malice, and that there is reasonable ground for such statements and inferences. �Action of Tort for Libel. On demurrer. �The defendants published in their newspaper, the Boston Daily Advertiser, an article concerning an attempt of Edward Crane, the plaiutiff, to procure the election of directors of the New York & New England Eailroad Company at the then recent annual meeting. The article was entitled "History Eepeated," and purported to give a nar- rative of the dealings of the plaintiff with the Boston, Hartford & Brie Eailroad Company by which he had brought it to bankruptcy, and to give the impression that he intended to act in a similar way with the New York & New England, which was a corporation formed by the bondholders of the other road. The project attributed to the plaintiff included the buying up of certain railroads in Connecticut, consolidating them with the New York & New England Company, etc. It alleged that the plaintiff's schemes were exposed by skilful ques- tioning at the meeting, and that he had retired discomfited. �The plaintiff, in his declaration, set out this article in full, and in the first count alleged damage generally; in the second that he was a manager and constructor of railrgads, and was engaged in a business undertaking to make a through line between Boston and New York by the purchase and construction of railroads, and that the New York ��� �