Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE
MUSIC TRADE
REVIEW
5
When Letters Sent to Debtors Become Libelous.
Some Points of Interest For Collection Departments of Piano Concerns—Wording of Letters Sent
Debtors of Exceeding Importance—The Vital Question is Whether Such Letters Have Been
"Published" in the Legal Sense, That Is, Dictated to a Stenographer, or Issued in Regular
Printed Form—If the Credit Man Writes With Pen or Typewriter a Letter Himself It Is Not
Libelous—Trouble Centers in the Communication Being Made Public—The Law Points
Involved Are of General Interest to the Members of the Piano Trade.
I
N one of the earliest articles in this series, and also in a much
later one, the law of libel and the misuse of the mails as it
applied to such business conditions as the use of collection let-
ters, the sending- of defamatory matter through the mails, and
so on; were discussed. The precise point covered by the fol-
lowing letter, was not, however, touched upon, and because it
reaches business men of all classes it is made the subject of this
article :
"We have been threatened with a lawsuit by a customer to
whom we recently wrote a sharp letter demanding payment of
an overdue account. It occurs to us to ask your judgment on
the point, which will also doubtless interest other business firms
whose hotheadedness may also run beyond the line of safety.
In our case the customer in question has been exceedingly
troublesome, and we have had to carry him ever since he first
opened an account with us. Recently he has been insolent and
at times abusive in his responses to our demands, and we have
a credit man who finds it hard to stand that from customers
whose accounts are delinquent nearly four months. He there-
fore wrote him a letter in which he made some very rash state-
ments concerning the customer's honesty, and expressed in plain
language the belief that the customer was getting ready to fail
and leave his creditors in the lurch, and that we did not propose
to be given any such treatment. It is this letter which the cus-
tomer, who has employed a lawyer, claims is libelous, and is
threatening to sue us about. We should be greatly interested
in having your opinion in the matter as to how we stand under
the law. The writer would say that our credit man is in the
habit of writing similar letters, which have in the past brought
in slow accounts, and he rather prides himself on his ability to
'get the money.' Since this experience, however, we are of
the opinion that we had better have some knowledge as to
'where we are at' before we follow that plan any further."
Whether the contents of this letter amounted to libel de-
pends on two factors: First, were the charges true? I need
only repeat what I said in former articles that if the charges
could be proven true, or it could be shown that the writer of
the letter was justified in making them and in believing them
true, no action will lie, because the truth of the charge is a com-
plete defense in actions in damages for libel.
The second factor is the mairt one in the case cited above.
It is this-—if the charges were not true, was the letter published
in the legal sense? There is, of course, no libel unless there has
been publication; in -fact, it is the publication of defamatory
statements to others that constitutes the libel, for A can write B
or tell him to his face the most outrageous falsehoods about his
character, and there will be no libel unless somebody read what
was written or heard what was said.
Now, was the credit man's letter published? If it followed
the usual course of business letters, and was dictated to a
stenographer, it was published under the great weight of au-
thority. If the credit man wrote it himself, either with pen or
typewriter, there was no publication, because nobody saw the
letter except the man who wrote it or the man who received it.
This is subject to a qualification, which will be explained
farther on.
If only one person beside the sender and receiver sees a
libelous letter, there is publication, under practically all cases
but one. The one exception is in New York State, but as this
correspondent is not located there, this case will hardly do him
much good. The New York case is interesting. The manager
of a corporation dictated to a stenographer a libelous letter upon
some matter of firm business. The corporation was sued for
libel, and the defense was that mere dictation to a stenographer
was not publication. And the court upheld this view, deciding
that where the person responsible for the libel, and the person
to whom the libel is said to have been published, were em-
ployes of a common master, and were engaged in performing
duties which their respective positions required, a stenographer
could not be considered a third person, therefore there was rio
publication.
This seems the more reasonable view, but it is not generally
held. The gist of an action in damages for libel is that the
publication of a libel among other persons, necessarily damaged
the injured party's reputation with them. The New York de-
cision was probably based on the theory that where a stenog-
rapher takes a letter about a man she may neither have seen
nor heard of, the chance of damage to his reputation with her,
is extremely remote, as she probably never gave the matter a
second thought.
Nevertheless, most courts hold that dictating a letter to a
stenographer is publication. I feel quite sure, if this letter was
first dictated to a stenographer, then went through the hands of
clerks or copyists, all of whom could read it or were obliged, in
the course of their duties to read it, that the letter was published
in a legal sense and that damages could be recovered on that
ground, providing again that the charges it contained were un-
true.
!
There may also have been publication on the other end for
which the sender of this letter would be held responsible. It is
well established that when a man sends a libelous letter out into
the world, even though it is directed solely to the person libeled,
he is liable—because he put it into circulation—for any damages
arising from other persons seeing it, provided their seeing it is
the natural consequence of the original act of sending it. If,
however, the recipient of the letter needlessly shows it to other
persons the original sender is not responsible.
Let me illustrate the difference between these two contin-
gencies, for it is important. Suppose a case in which A is
trading under his own name as a retail dealer. B is his silent
partner, and has provided practically all the money in the busi-
ness. C sends a libelous letter to A regarding A's honesty and
good faith, addressing it to A personally. B is in the office
after the letter is received, sees it lying on the desk with other
firm mail and reads it. He at once withdraws his support from
A and A fails. Here C is undoubtedly responsible for all of the
damages done by the publication of his letter to B, for B's see-
ing it was a natural and probable consequence.
Take another case, however. C sends the libelous letter to
A, and A, beside himself with rage, shows it without the slight-
est reason, to a number of outsiders. He later sues C and
attempts to claim damages by reason of publication to these
persons. The courts would inevitably hold here that C was
not responsible for A's showing of the letter, because it was not
a natural consequence of the original sending of the letter.—r
l
Copyright, January, 1912, by Elton J. Buckley.