*377.* _Confidential, Tribunal, Malice._—The rule is that all confidential
statements made to an officer or a tribunal of the church concerning a
member in the course of church discipline and for the good of the church,
if not made with malice, are privileged, and no action for libel or
slander can be maintained therefor.(674)
*378.* _Member, Officer, Councils._—But slanderous or libelous statements
made concerning a person not a member of the church or made concerning a
member of the church to another member who is not either an officer or in
the councils of the church, are actionable and the person making or
publishing such statements is liable for damages. Also, a person who
repeats a libel or slander may be liable as though he were the
originator.(675)
*379.* _Official Communication, Privileged._—An official communication
between authorities of the church or an authority and a member of the
church concerning a church matter or church members and not made in
malice, is privileged.(676)
*380.* _Priest, Pastoral Duties._—Where a priest published from the altar
that “Peter Servatius is excommunicated, because he laid hands on the
priest to put him out of the church, and he has no more benefit of the
prayers of the church. I will not pray for him, and consider him a lost
sheep and withdraw all my pastoral blessings from him. If he die, the
burial rights of the church will be denied him,” such remarks were held
defamatory, unless they were spoken in the proper discharge of the
priest’s clerical and pastoral duties and without malice; and the case
should have been submitted on the evidence to a jury.(677)
*381.* _Church Record, Excommunication._—An entry of a church record that
“A report raised and circulated by A. B. against Brother C., stating that
he made him pay a note twice, and proved by A. B. as false,” is
libelous.(678) But an entry of excommunication of a member made in the
record and shown to other members, is not libelous, the latter being
properly a part of the record and the former extraneous.(679)
*382.* _Will, Libel, Action._—The will of a priest contained a statement
that a relative had received $300 from him for clothing, maintenance,
education, etc., and promised to repay it, but paid no part of it. Then
testator bequeathed said $300 to two legatees to collect for their own
use. The relative filed a petition asking the estate of the priest to be
held liable for a libel in the sum of $50,000 and the court held that as
the right of action did not accrue until after the death of the testator,
there was a right of action against the estate. As the case never got
beyond the probate court, its authority is doubtful.(680)
*383.* _Language, Insane, Good Faith._—Unless the language is used by the
bishop in the line of his duty, a statement that a priest is irresponsible
and insane, that he was removed from his position of priest for good
reason, and that he has been guilty of ecclesiastical disobedience, is
slanderous _per se_. To make a communication between a bishop and priest
privileged it must have been spoken in good faith and in belief that the
speaking of it came within the discharge of the bishop’s duty.(681)
*384.* _Rector, Bigamy, Tobacco, Liquor._—In a case where the rector of an
Episcopal church called upon a man charged with bigamy and after a private
conversation the minister wrote a letter to the district attorney on
behalf of the prisoner, it was held not privileged because it was not made
in confidence of the relation and was not kept as a secret.(682) A letter
from a church member of one congregation to the elders of another
congregation advising them of the unfitness of a clergyman appointed to
the latter parish, and stating that he used tobacco and liquor, that he
was an untruthful man, and that his family was no credit to the community,
was quasi-privileged; and in the absence of proof that the charges were
false and malicious was not actionable.(683)
*385.* _Newspapers, Criticisms, Priest._—A newspaper has a right to
publish criticisms of the conduct of a priest in certain services held in
his church if no false statement of facts is given, since such conduct is
a proper subject of discussion; and if such article contains a statement
that if certain published accounts of the conduct of the priest are true
he acted in an improper manner, etc., it is not libelous because such
facts are not true, as it is not an affirmation of the truth thereof.
Where the alleged libel was published in a foreign language and the
correctness of the translation was disputed, it was an error for the judge
to instruct the jury that if the translation introduced in evidence was
correct, the defendant was liable, since plaintiff’s right to recover
should not be made to depend on the absolute accuracy of the
translation.(684)
*386.* _Clergyman, Discipline, Tribunals, Testimony, Argument._—What a
clergyman says in the administration of the discipline of the church or
what is said in tribunals to enforce discipline of the church, including
testimony and legitimate argument within the scope of the case, if said in
good faith and without malice, is not actionable in the civil courts.(685)
*387.* _Physical Discipline, Imprisonment, Courts._—A clergyman who claims
to have been slandered by a parishioner can not administer physical
discipline nor put the offender under restraint without leaving himself
liable for damages for assault and battery or false imprisonment. If the
clergyman desires to treat the charge as a church matter, he must go into
the church tribunal; otherwise, his proper course is to bring an action
for slander in the State court.(686)
*388.* _Sermon, False Statement, Crime._—A clergyman may, by words used in
a sermon, slander a member of his congregation. However, if he makes no
false statement and does not falsely or maliciously charge a crime, what
he says in the way of discipline is privileged.(687) The meaning of the
words “she is a dirty, vile woman,” can not be extended by innuendo.(688)
*389.* _Charges, Robbed, Hypocrite._—Charges that a person has robbed a
church or has stolen from a church, are actionable.(689) Also, charging a
person with being a hypocrite and using the cloak of religion for unworthy
purposes, is slanderous.(690)
*390.* _Investigation, Probable Cause._—When a member of a church consents
to an investigation on complaint before a person who is not a member, if
the complaint was made on probable cause and not under the pretence of
exposing the defendant to scorn or obloquy, he could not subsequently
bring an action for libel.(691)
*391.* _Sacraments._—To publish of a person that he has been deprived of
the sacraments of the church to which he belongs, is libelous.(692)
*392.* _Obituary, Tolling Bell._—To falsely and maliciously publish an
obituary notice of a person living, is good ground for an action for
libel.(693) However, a complaint that a church tolled its bell to announce
the death of a member, and did report him dead when he was actually
living, and that it was all done for the purpose of annoying, harassing,
and vexing the person and his family, was held not sufficient to support
an action for libel. The latter case is doubtful law.(694)
*393.* _Newspaper, Profane Swearer._—A newspaper in a notice of the death
of a church member has the right to state that he was a profane swearer,
if such was the case.(695)
*394.* _Business or Property, Special Damages._—A company incorporated for
the purpose of transacting business which would include hospitals,
schools, and industrial institutions, may maintain an action for libel the
same as an individual for any words affecting its business or property, if
special damages are alleged and proved.(696)
*395.* _Justification, Repeating._—It is no justification that libelous
matter had been previously published by a third person, that the name of
such person was disclosed at the time of repeating the libel, and that the
person who was repeating it believed all the statements in the libel to be
true.(697)