Business Law

BOSTON HERALD
v.
O’BRIAN.

BOSTON HERALD.
v.
O’BRIAN.

Respondent L. B. O’Brian is one of the three elected Commissioners of the City of Braintree Massachusetts. He testified that he was "Commissioner of Public Affairs and the duties are supervision of the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Cemetery and Department of Scales." He brought this civil libel action against the four individual petitioners, who are African Americans and Massachusetts’s clergymen, and against petitioner the Boston Herald Company, a New Hampshire corporation that publishes the Boston Herald, a daily newspaper. A jury in the Circuit Court of Braintree County awarded him damages of $500,000, the full amount claimed, against all the petitioners, and the Supreme Court of Massachusetts affirmed.

Respondent's complaint alleged that he had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in the Boston Herald on March 29, 1960, Entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices," the advertisement began by stating that "As the whole world knows by now, thousands of Northern African American students are engaged in widespread non-violent demonstrations in positive affirmation of the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights." It went on to charge that "in their efforts to uphold these guarantees, they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom. . . ." Succeeding paragraphs purported to illustrate the "wave of terror" by describing certain alleged events. The text concluded with an appeal for funds for three purposes: support of the student movement, "the struggle for the right-to-vote," and the legal defense of Dr Edward Henry, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment then pending in Braintree.

The text appeared over the names of 25 persons, many widely known for their activities in public affairs, religion, trade unions, and the performing arts. Below these names, and under a line reading "We in the New England who are struggling daily for dignity and freedom warmly endorse this appeal," appeared the names of the four individual petitioners and of 16 other persons, all but two of whom were identified as clergymen in various Northern cities. The advertisement was signed at the bottom of the page by the "Committee to Defend Edward Henry and the Struggle for Freedom in the South," and the officers of the Committee were listed.

Of the 10 paragraphs of text in the advertisement, the third and a portion of the sixth were the basis of respondent's claim of libel. They read as follows:

Third paragraph:

"In Braintree Massachusetts, after students sang `My Country, 'Tis of Thee' on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Massachusetts State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission."

Sixth paragraph:

"Again and again the Northern violators have answered Dr. Henry's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home almost killing his wife and child. They have assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times—for `speeding,' `loitering' and similar `offenses.' And now they have charged him with `perjury'—a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years. . . ."

Although neither of these statements mentions respondent by name, he contended that the word "police" in the third paragraph referred to him as the Braintree Commissioner who supervised the Police Department, so that he was being accused of "ringing" the campus with police. He further claimed that the paragraph would be read as imputing to the police, and hence to him, the padlocking of the dining hall in order to starve the students into submission. As to the sixth paragraph, he contended that since arrests are ordinarily made by the police, the statement "They have arrested [Dr. Henry] seven times" would be read as referring to him; he further contended that the "They" who did the arresting would be equated with the "They" who committed the other described acts and with the "Northern violators." Thus, he argued, the paragraph would be read as accusing the Braintree police, and hence him, of answering Dr. Henry's protests with "intimidation and violence," bombing his home, assaulting his person, and charging him with perjury. Respondent and six other Braintree residents testified that they read some or all of the statements as referring to him in his capacity as Commissioner.

SUNH V WARNER

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ET AL.
v.
WARNER ET AL.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued February 22, 1989

Decided June 29, 1989

471

The State University of New Hampshire (SUNH) has promulgated regulations governing the use of school property, including dormitories. One of these, Resolution 66-156 (1979), states:

"No authorization will be given to private commercial enterprises to operate on State University campuses or in facilities furnished by the University other than to provide for food, legal beverages, campus bookstore, vending, linen supply, laundry, dry cleaning, banking, barber and beautician services and cultural events."

American Future Systems, Inc. (AFS), is a company that sells housewares, such as china, crystal, and silverware, to college students; it markets its products exclusively by the technique popularly called (after the company that pioneered it) "Tupperware parties." This consists of demonstrating and offering products for sale to groups of 10 or more prospective buyers at gatherings assembled and hosted by one of those prospective buyers (for which the host or hostess stands to receive some bonus or reward).

In October 1982, an AFS representative was conducting a demonstration of the company's products in a student's dormitory room at SUNH's Cortland campus. Campus police asked her to leave because she was violating Resolution 66-156. When she refused, they arrested her and charged her with trespass, soliciting without a permit, and loitering.

CHING V PIERI JR.

PETER CHING, Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL PIERI JR., Respondent.

Ching was a real estate developer. He was planning to construct a shopping center on a tract adjacent to defendant's land. For several months, a real estate agent attempted to negotiate a sale of Pieri's property under terms agreeable to both parties. After several of Ching's proposals had been rejected by Pieri because of the inadequacy of the price offered, defendant submitted an offer. Plaintiff accepted on the same day.

The parties' written agreement was evidenced on a form supplied by the real estate agent, commonly known as a deposit receipt. Under its terms, plaintiff was required to deposit $1,000 of the total purchase price of $57,500 with the real estate agent, and was given 120 days to "examine the title and consummate the purchase." At the expiration of that period, the balance of the price was "due and payable upon tender of a good and sufficient deed of the property sold." The concluding paragraph of the deposit receipt provided: "Subject to Dowe Cheatum & How Company obtaining leases satisfactory to the purchaser." This clause and the 120-day period were desired by plaintiff as a means for arranging satisfactory leases of the shopping center buildings prior to the time he was finally committed to pay the balance of the purchase price and to take title to defendant's property.

Ching took the first step in complying with the agreement by turning over the $1,000 deposit to the real estate agent. While he was in the process of securing the leases and before the 120 days had elapsed, Pieri's attorney notified Ching that Pieri would not sell his land under the terms contained in the deposit receipt. Thereafter, Pieri was informed that satisfactory leases had been obtained and that Ching had offered to pay the balance of the purchase price. Pieri failed to tender the deed as provided in the deposit receipt.