Page images
PDF
EPUB

called humanitarian doctrine as understood But, independent of this, in my opinion, I in this state, sprang into existence as naturally as day follows night, and thereby converted a wise statute, for the protection of all, into inextricable chaos, and turning the citizens of the country loose upon the various railroads thereof, without a light or compass, believing as they did and do under the ruling of that and similar cases that they have equal rights upon a railroad with the engines and cars of the company, which of course is erroneous, and causes a continuous conflict and war between them and the railroads. In my opinion, that ruling, either directly or indirectly, has caused more bloodshed and waste of treasure than has any one war on the face of the earth from that date to this.

In the case of Murphy v. Railroad, 228 Mo. 56, beginning at local page 88, 128 S. W. 481, with the meager information I could glean from observation, the press, the State and Federal Labor Bureaus, and state and interstate railway and commerce reports, pointed out in a limited way the appalling loss of life and limb, and the loss and destruction done to property, that naturally flowed from that unwise, yet intended human ruling. I believe I may speak with authority when I say that in my opinion both the bench and bar now see the error of that ruling, and deeply regret the doctrine which so spontaneously mounted therefrom, as the phoenix arose from its own ashes, with such youth and vigor, never dreamed of when the doctrine was first announced. That case vividly illustrates the old saying, "Hard cases make bad laws," and that said truth has never before been so forcibly impressed upon the minds of thinking men within the annals of our jurisprudence. The effect of that ruling had the direct and opposite effect to what all at the time thought it would have, and I confess that at the time I entered the same views of the statute that were announced by this court in that case; however, since investigating the matter, I have completely changed my views thereof, not of the merits of the particular case, but of the rule announced. And I realize the rule as there announced in that case cannot, and probably should not, be changed except by legislation; but this court, being perfectly familiar with the evils that have and are constantly flowing from that rule, should set its face like a flint against its further extension, or to corrupt any other helpful statutes by injecting into its meaning the virus of that unwise ruling. Believing, as I do, that the elevator statute under consideration says what it means, and means what it says, namely that no child under the age of 16 years shall be permitted to operate or to assist in the operation of any elevator, etc., I am unwilling to lend my assistance to the infusion of the poisonous doctrine announced in the Morgan Case, supra, into the arterial system of this or any other kindred statute.

do not believe under all of the evidence preserved in this record the plaintiff, under the modern rule of evidence, made out a case for the jury. That is, the evidence taken as a whole is not sufficient to justify any court or jury in holding the defendant liable for the injuries complained of in this case. Under the old scintilla rule of evidence, a case may have been made for the jury, but this and most of the courts of last resort of the various states of the United States have abandoned that rule, and adopted the rule of the Supreme Court of the United States, which I believe is the wiser and more just of the two, namely, that a case should not be submitted to the jury, or a verdict or a judgment be permitted to stand, without from a review of the entire record the court can say that the evidence introduced satisfies a disinterested, unbiased, and reasonable man that the plaintiff should recover, or that where reasonable men, under the same or similar facts or circumstances might differ, as to the facts involved. This rule smacks of justice, and excludes the idea that any witness, however dishonest or disreputable he may be, or however mistaken or ignorant he may have been of the facts, can, by his bare statement, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property, and compel those who come into court asking justice to produce substantial evidence tending to show to reasonable men that his demand is just and reasonable, and not founded simply upon the rule of scintilla of evidence, true or false, just or unjust, which has too frequently under the guise of the law robbed men and women of their lives, liberty, or property. This is one of the rules of progression I most heartily concur in, to say nothing of others.

Returning to the case in hand: careful reading of this record, I dare say After a that there is not one man in a hundred who after dispassionately reading this record would for a moment give any credence whatever to the unnatural, unreasonable, and incredible story told by the plaintiff in this case if weighed under the rule previously mentioned. Common observation, experience, and knowledge of such matters point in no uncertain terms to the correctness of defendant's theory of this case, and to the fallacy of that of plaintiff; and, according to the hornbooks we have the legal right to resort to common sense, common observation, common experience, and common knowledge in weighing the testimony of any and all witnesses introduced. Primarily, of course, that duty rests with the jury, but if, as previously stated from an examination of the entire record, the evidence under the rule just stated is insufficient to convince one or more reasonable men of the justness of the claim presented, then this nor any other court should hesitate to declare the law to be that plaintiff is not entitled to a recovery.

This case in my opinion, as illuminated by

the evidence, does not measure up to the rule stated, and for that reason, I am firmly of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to a recovery upon the merits of the case. So believing, I concur in the result of the majority opinion affirming the judgment

of the circuit court.

DARROW v. BRIGGS et al. (No. 16741.) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2. July 14, 1914.)

1. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (§ 8*)—CONTRACT WITH PROFESSOR-DISCHARGE. Defendant college, a denominational institution, whose charter provided that no religious test should ever be fixed for its trustees, instructors, or students, and which engaged plaintiff as a member of its faculty for one year, with the understanding and agreement that he would be retained, at the discretion of its board of trustees, for any period beyond the first year without any renewal of the contract, and whose trustees, by the articles and by-laws, had power, after the first year, to remove any instructor, when in its judgment the interest of the college should require it, was justified in removing plaintiff from his position on the faculty after he had donated a book, called "Key to Theosophy," to the local public library, and was subjected to attack from the pulpit of another defendant on the ground that he was unsound in his religious views and unfit to be an instructor in the college, and to attacks of the same tenor through the local press, to which he replied, involving himself in a public controversy.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Colleges and Universities, Cent. Dig. §§ 20-22; Dec. Dig. § 8.*1

2. CONSPIRACY (§ 1*)-CIVIL LIABILITY-NATURE AND ELEMENTS-INJURY TO PERSON OR REPUTATION.

Where the act of the individual defendants, as trustees of defendant college, in removing plaintiff from his position as a member of its faculty was justified by the terms of plaintiff's employment and by the charter of the college, no civil action could be maintained against them for conspiracy.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-5; Dec. Dig. § 1.*] 3. CONSPIRACY (§ 18*) CIVIL LIABILITY PLEADING CONSISTENCY WITH THEORY OF ACTION.

[ocr errors]

In a civil action for a conspiracy, involving breach of contract and slander and libel as a means of accomplishing the injury, allegations that one of the defendants did not participate in any such libels or slanders, but that another defendant communicated the alleged slanders to him, were inconsistent with plaintiff's theory of an actionable conspiracy.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. §§ 18-24; Dec. Dig. § 18.*] 4. CONSPIRACY (§ 18*) CIVIL LIABILITY ELEMENTS-INJURY.

[ocr errors]

-

In a civil action on the case for a conspiracy, the gist of the action is the damage which plaintiff has sustained by the acts of defendants; the conspiracy or combination is nothing, so far as sustaining the action goes, and the allegations thereof need not be proven. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. §§ 18-24; Dec. Dig. § 18.*] 5. CONSPIRACY (§ 1*) GROUNDS OF ACTION AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT. A civil action against several for conspiracy can only be sustained against them where the

[ocr errors]

CIVIL LIABILITY
RIGHT OF ACTION

acts complained of would sustain an action against any one of the defendants, and the alauthorize the maintenance of the action, when legation that they conspired together does not plaintiff could not maintain it against one defendant, if sued alone; the reason being that a conspiracy itself furnishes no cause of action, because, from the mere conspiracy, no possible damages can accrue.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-5; Dec. Dig. § 1.*]

6. PLEADING ($ 64*)-PETITION-DUPLICITY. The petition in a civil action against several for conspiracy, involving breach of contract and slander and libel as a means of accomplishing the injury, alleging libels published and slanders uttered at different times and to different audiences and to different readers through different media and under different circumstances, all mixed and blended in one count, was bad.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 134-137; Dec. Dig. § 64.*] 7. CONSPIRACY (§ 18*)-PLEADING-FORM AND REQUISITES-STATEMENT OF ACTION.

Such petition also violated Rev. St. 1909, 8 1794, requiring a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action, as, even if such defect was not one for which, under the strict letter of section 1800, a demurrer would lie, the pleader, by the use of doubtful or uncertain allegations, was not allowed to throw upon his adversary the hazard of correctly interpreting its meaning.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Conspiracy, Cent. Dig. § 18-24; Dec. Dig. § 18.*]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; James T. Neville, Judge.

Action by Fritz S. Darrow against C. H. Briggs and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Greene county, sustaining a demurrer to the following petition (caption omitted), to wit:

"Plaintiff states: That the defendant Drury College is a body politic and educational institution and was organized July 2, 1873, under Missouri. That, under such original articles article 8 of chapter 37 of Wagner's Statutes of of incorporation and the by-laws governing the body, said Drury College was denominational in this: That the said articles and by-laws amongst other things provided that a majority of the board of trustees thereof provided for by such articles and by-laws must profess the faith and creed of the Christian organization known as the Congregational Church. That on the 8th day of May, 1905, the organization known as the Carnegie Foundation was organized and created under the laws of the state of New York. That, by the charter of such organization and its by-laws, it is provided that any and all institutions of learning that do not provide for a prescribed religious test for its trustees, or for its faculty, or for its instructors, or for its beneficiaries of the fund provided for by said students, are and become eligible to become the Carnegie Foundation, and when the said institutions are, by and after proper application, placed upon the accepted list of said Carnegie Foundation, the professors thereof, as prescribed by the charter, by-laws, rules, and regulations of said Carnegie Foundation, become eligible for retirement and become eligible to receive the benefits prescribed by said Carnegie Foundation. That the object of said Carnegie Foundation in providing such donations for the benefit of such educational institutions and for the teachers and professors thereof is to elevate the

For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

standard of such institutions and to elevate the standard of the teachers and professors thereof by insuring to said teachers and professors an income in the event of disability arising from years of service and to insure and encourage independence of thought. That prior to October 1, 1909, to wit, on the day of , 1908, the said Drury College, for the purpose of securing the benefits conferred by the said Carnegie Foundation, amended its said charter and by-laws by striking from the said charter and by-laws the provision heretofore set forth touching the organization of its trustees.

"Plaintiff states: That, by the charter and by-laws of said college which were in force at all times hereinafter mentioned, it was further provided that 'no religious or political test as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of all the advantages afforded by Drury College for study and instruction shall ever be established or allowed by the board of trustees.' That, pursuant to said change in said articles, said Drury College became eligible, and by application in due form prior to September, 1907, was placed upon the accepted list of said Carnegie Foundation, and by reason of the premises its teachers and professors were free from any political or religious test.

"Plaintiff states that by profession he is an educator and qualified himself for such profession and has devoted himself entirely to such profession since July, 1906, and was a teacher at all times herein mentioned.

"Plaintiff states that on or about the day of September, 1907, the said Drury College named him as one of its faculty and retained him as a professor in Greek in said institution.

"Plaintiff states that, by the terms of said employment, he was engaged as a member of said Drury College faculty for a period of one year, with the distinct promise and condition that, if after said probationary period of one year there was no difficulty, the said employment became permanent.

"Plaintiff states that the true meaning and intent of said engagement is that if the educational work of plaintiff was satisfactory, and no personal objections could be urged, said employment would be permanent. But plaintiff says it was not contemplated that the question of the religious convictions and beliefs of plaintiff should be considered a 'difficulty,' within the meaning of said employment, and that the failure to retain plaintiff, as hereinafter set out and for the reasons hereinafter stated after he had passed said probationary period, were breaches of said contract of employment, as plaintiff further states that, in the notice of his engagement, it was distinctly stated that he would become a permanent member of said faculty if his first year's service as an educator were satisfactory.

"Plaintiff states that, at said date and at all dates hereinafter mentioned, he was a citizen of the United States and of the state of Missouri; that he was and is guaranteed religious freedom and the right of conscience and the right to worship according to the dictates of his conscience, as provided by Constitution of said United States, amendment No. 1, and by the Constitution of the state of Missouri, art. 2, § 5.

teach universal brotherhood, to demonstrate that such brotherhood is a fact in nature, and by its teachings to make such brotherhood a living power in the life of humanity, and the subsidiary purposes of which are the study of ancient and modern religious science, philosophy, and art and to investigate the laws of nature and the divine powers in man.

"Plaintiff states that, at all times hereinafter mentioned, he was and is now a Mason, and that at all times herein mentioned he followed the profession of teaching as a livelihood.

"Plaintiff states that, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant J. H. George was and now is the president of the defendant Drury College.

"Plaintiff states that, at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant C. H. Briggs was and now is a minister of the Gospel, professing the Methodist faith, and at the times hereinafter mentioned was paster of the St. Paul Methodist Episcopal Church in the city of Springfield, Mo. "Plaintiff states that on or about the day of December, 1909, in the exercise of his rights he caused to be tendered to the Carnegie Library a work, entitled the 'Key to Theosophy'; said work having been written to expound, interpret, and elucidate the teachings of said Theosophical Society and Brotherhood.

"Plaintiff states that the defendants C. H. Briggs and J. H. George and the said Drury College, through and by its board of trustees, on the said day of December, 1909, knew that the plaintiff was a member of the said Theosophical Society and Brotherhood, and for such reason determined to defame and injure plaintiff as a man and to destroy his influence as a teacher and to oust him from his position as a teacher in said Drury College and to drop him from the faculty of said college and to prevent his retention and employment as a member of said faculty.

"Plaintiff states that the defendants knew of the tender of said book 'Key to Theosophy' to said library, and with such knowledge, and for the purposes aforesaid, and for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of his said constitutional rights and driving him from the said city of Springfield, Mo., conspired and confederated to do the things hereinafter set forth and complained of; that is to say: They combined and confederated to interfere with his constitutional rights and to prevent him from enjoying the same, to represent him as a man morally unfit to be a teacher, to excite ill will and prejudice against him, and thus affect his standing as a man and his position and standing as a teacher, to hold him up to ridicule and contempt, to secure his dismissal from Drury College, and to prevent his retention as a member of its faculty, and to prosecute and drive him from said city of Springfield, and to injure him financially by urging his retirement from said faculty and by lessening and affecting his opportunity for employment elsewhere as a teacher.

"Plaintiff states that, in furtherance of said design and conspiracy, the defendant C. H. Briggs induced the librarian of said public library, who was then and there of said church of which defendant Briggs was pastor, to refuse to accept and receive said literature so tendered, and induced said librarian to refuse to place on the same plane as other books in said library "Plaintiff states that, at the dates hereinafter said 'Key to Theosophy' and other theosophical set forth, there was in the said city of Spring-books and magazines by plaintiff caused to be field a public library, known as the Carnegie tendered. Library, and the same was and is maintained by general taxes levied upon the citizens of the said city of Springfield, Mo., and is also partially maintained, so far as literature is concerned, by contributions of books and magazines by citizens generally.

"Plaintiff states that on January 18, 1898, he was, and at all times since has been, a member of the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society, the principal purpose of which is to

"Plaintiff states that this was the first step of the defendant Briggs to humble and injure plaintiff, and that said Briggs caused the said librarian to discriminate against said literature, and especially said book Key to Theosophy,' on the alleged ground that said book was antagonistic to the teachings of the so-called Christianity of said Briggs and on the ground that it was not a proper book for the public mind. Whereas in truth and in fact all of the teach

ings of said book 'Key to Theosophy' tend to, the uplifting of humanity and to the inculcation of morality, and contains nothing that renders it unfit for reading and study.

"Plaintiff states that he directed the attention of the board of trustees of said library to said attempted discrimination and the said board of directors resolved that said book was a fit and proper work to be accepted and received and exposed for the use of the patrons of said library.

"Plaintiff states that thereupon, and in furtherance of said design to deprive him of his said constitutional rights and to injure plaintiff in his character as a man and his standing as an educator, the said Briggs, on the 12th day of March, 1910, falsely and maliciously represented and stated to the defendant J. H. George, who was then the president of said Drury College, that plaintiff is an atheist and unfit to be an instructor in said Drury College,' then and thereby charging, implying, and intending to charge and imply that plaintiff, as a so-called atheist, was morally unfit to be an instructor. And said Briggs at said time demanded the retirement of plaintiff from said Drury College, and threatened a boycott against said college by a body known as the Ministerial Alliance of Springfield, Mo., thereby intending to threaten, and thereby threatening, that, if plaintiff were retained by said Drury College, the influence of said Ministerial Alliance would be exerted to injure said college financially by keeping students from entering said college and thereby intending to bring about the removal of plaintiff from the faculty of said college under threat of said boycott.

"Plaintiff states that said action was directed against him solely on account of his (plaintiff's) membership in said theosophical society and not on account of any lack of requirements demanded of him as a member of said Drury College faculty and not on account of any moral or mental delinquencies or deficiencies of plaintiff.

"Plaintiff states that it is not true that he (plaintiff) is an 'atheist,' as said defendant Briggs well knew, and plaintiff says it is not true that he was unfit to be an instructor in said college, as defendant Briggs well knew. "Plaintiff states that, after such attack, the said Briggs and the defendant J. H. George conspired and confederated to humiliate plaintiff, injure him as an educator and as a man, and to force him to resign and retire from said faculty, and, failing in which, they conspired to secure a resolution of the board of trustees of said college to refuse to retain plaintiff as one of its faculty.

moral attainments and was 'scatter-brained,' and not fitted either mentally or morally to discharge the duties of his profession as a teacher, and especially as a teacher and member of the faculty of Drury College.

"Plaintiff states that in furtherance of said design, and as evidence thereof, the defendant George on the 15th day of March, 1910, thanked the defendant Briggs for the accusation made and lodged against plaintiff.

"Plaintiff states that in furtherance of said design to injure and punish him on account of his said religious convictions, and with the intention of discrediting him and forcing him to lose his said position as teacher, the said defendant Briggs on March 21, 1910, at a meeting of said Ministerial Alliance, it being a voluntary association of ministers of the Gospel in Springfield and composed of all denominations, spoke of plaintiff in the hearing and presence of divers persons, members of said alliance, false and defamatory language of the substance following, to wit, 'He,' meaning plaintiff, 'is an atheist and unfit to be an instructor,' and at said meeting declared that 'I (Briggs) have demanded of Dr. George, president of Drury College, action at the meeting of the board of trustees of said college for the retirement of Prof. Darrow,' thereby implying that plaintiff was unfit to be retained in the faculty of said college, and intending to convey said meaning, and plaintiff states that the said statement was so understood by the auditors at said meeting. In furtherance of said design against plaintiff and as showing malice on the part of said conspirators, plaintiff states there was present at and the said Schuder attempted to declare and said last-mentioned meeting one H. A. Schuder, explain to the said Ministerial Alliance and those present that plaintiff was not an 'atheist,' as declared by said Briggs, but the said Briggs interrupted the said Schuder and said declaration and refused to let the said Schuder proceed with his statement.

statement was pursuant to and in execution of
"Plaintiff states that said action and said
the agreement and understanding of said de-
fendants Briggs and George and was intended
and designed to influence said Ministerial Al-
tion as an association in a concerted demand on
said Drury College for the retirement of the
plaintiff and to afford said defendant George a
pretended justification to bring the matter be-
fore the board of trustees of Drury College
and afford a pretended justification of the ac-
faculty of said college.
tion of such board in retiring plaintiff from the

liance and induce said association to take ac

remove

"Plaintiff states that, in furtherance of said "Plaintiff states that, while said Ministerial design and conspiracy, the defendant Briggs Alliance as a body refused to lend itself to the on Sunday, March 13, 1910, in and from the designs of the defendants, yet, as a result of pulpit of the said St. Paul Methodist Episcopal the conspiracy of the defendants and said stateChurch in the city of Springfield, Mo., in the ments of defendant Briggs before said alliance, presence and hearing of a large congregation the following appeared in the Springfield Reof men and women, falsely and maliciously publican, a newspaper published in Springfield, said, and in a defamatory manner spoke of Mo., on April 10, 1910, on the authority of the and concerning plaintiff, certain false and de- president of the alliance, to wit: "That, while the individual members of the alliance might famatory words of the substance following, to wit: The library has become the active agent have made such a request (viz., a request on and assistant of the evil one, his Satanic Maj- Dr. George and the trustees of Drury College esty, because it has accepted a donation of a at the instigation of defendants to work from a scatter-brained professor who is plaintiff), the organization had not officially a theosophist'-meaning thereby and intending taken the matter up.' In furtherance of said to convey the meaning, and being so under-conspiracy between said George and Briggs, stood by his auditors, that the Carnegie Library aforesaid, through the action of its board of directors, had reported favorably upon the question of the character of the book 'Key to Theosophy,' donated by plaintiff as aforesaid, and its acceptance by said board, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff was furthering and advancing evil, and meaning thereby, and intending to convey the meaning thereby, and thereby conveying the meaning, and the meaning being so understood by his auditors, that plaintiff was deficient and lacking in mental and

and especially in furtherance of the design to dismiss plaintiff from his position as professor aforesaid, on account of his religious convictions, but at the same time intending to conceal the real reasons for such action and intending to find a pretext for such action, plaintiff states the following: That he was on April 6, 1910, a member of the college discipline committee of said Drury College, and a meeting of said committee, for the consideration of college matters of discipline, was called for said April 6th, and that said George, acting in con

in one of the papers of said city of Springfield,
in which plaintiff quoted language used by said
Briggs of the substance following: 'Rev. Mr.
Briggs refers to me as a "scatter-brained"
professor of Drury College, and says when a
man has his head turned by theosophy he should
not use his position as a teacher of Christian
thought to form classes in theosophy for the pur-
pose of proselyting students to his fad.' Plain-
tiff states that in answer to said communication,
and with the knowledge and approval of the de-
fendant George, and in furtherance of said de-
sign to oppress and injure plaintiff, the said de-
fendant Briggs under his own signature, and on
April 19, 1910, caused to be published in the
Springfield Leader, a newspaper published in
the city of Springfield, Mo., and having a large
circulation in said city and throughout South-
west Missouri, an article containing the fol-
lowing language: "The expression he [meaning
plaintiff] professed to quote from me, "a scatter-
brained professor of Drury College," was not
used by me in the sermon preached March 12,
1910. I have never in any public utterance used
the name "Drury College" in connection with
this case. Further he charges that he said,
"When a man had his head turned by theoso-
phy he should not use his position as a teacher
of Christian thought to form classes in theosophy
for the purpose of proselyting students to his
fad." He must be quoting from some one else,
for I cannot recognize the quotation. He is
about the last man in Springfield that I would
speak of as leader of Christian thought.'
"Plaintiff states that defendant Briggs in
furtherance of said design, and by said article
and language, reiterated that plaintiff was un-
fit mentally and morally to occupy the position
of teacher, and thereby charging by the negative
pregnant denial that plaintiff is 'scatter-brain-
ed,' and thereby admitting that he had used and
reiterating said language without the use of the
words Drury College, and thereby and by the
use of said language reflecting upon the stand-
ing of plaintiff in Springfield, Mo.

cert with said Briggs for the purpose herein | peated assaults, he (plaintiff) published an article stated, notified all members of said committee of said meeting, except this plaintiff, who at that time was at the chapel of the college in the discharge of his duties, as said George well knew; and plaintiff states that at said meeting so called the said George publicly complained of the nonattendance of plaintiff at said meeting. "Plaintiff states that further, in pursuance of said design to injure plaintiff and to punish him on account of his said religious convictions and with the knowledge and approval of defendant George, the defendant Briggs on the 17th day of April 1910, in the city of Springfield, Mo., and from the pulpit of the said St. Paul Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and in the presence and hearing of divers persons, men and women, spoke of plaintiff false, defamatory, and injurious language of the substance following: When a teacher eating the bread of a Christian institution teaches doctrine non-Christian and antagonistic to a personal God, when a man makes use of his position to spread his fad by attempting to proselyte and force his belief upon students, he is either weak here (the said Briggs at the word "here" striking his head) or wrong "here" (the said Briggs at the word "here" tapping his breast), weak-minded, or morally dishonest. I say this man has either an illbalanced intellect or else is evilly disposed. Such a man should be removed from his position. To him should be applied the words, 'Fool, when will'st thou learn? The defendant Briggs thereby intending to convey the meaning and charging, and thereby conveying the meaning, and said meaning being so understood by the auditors, that plaintiff was improperly making use of his position as such teacher in Drury College and attempting to proselyte and attempting to force his belief upon students of said college, all of which was untrue in fact, as the defendants Briggs and George well knew, and intending to charge and to convey the meaning, and the said auditors then understood the meaning, to be that plaintiff was either weak-minded or morally dishonest, and therefore an improper person to occupy the position of instructor of Drury College.

"And plaintiff says this was a part of the general plan of said Briggs and George to stir up such a sentiment as would apparently justify plaintiff's removal as such instructor and with the design to discredit plaintiff as a teacher and as a man, and thereby injure his good name and deprive him of his means of livelihood.

"Plaintiff states that, in furtherance of said conspiracy, the said Briggs and George caused said last-described so-called sermon and remarks to be published on April 18, 1910, in the Springfield Leader, a newspaper published in Springfield, Mo.

"Plaintiff states that on April 18, 1910, in furtherance of said design, said Briggs repeated to the said Ministerial Alliance the said language so used in said so-called sermon, he, (Briggs) and said George intending and contriving to induce said alliance to take part in the persecution of said plaintiff and to induce said alliance to make demands on defendant George and on said Drury College for the removal or retirement of said plaintiff, and thus afford an apparent justification for such action by said college, which course it had then determined upon pursuing.

"Plaintiff further states that in furtherance of said design, and intending to hold plaintiff up to contempt as an unfit associate of Masons, and thereby intending to cause the removal of plaintiff as such teacher, and intending to injure and oppress him on account of his religious convictions in said article of April 19, 1910, used the following false and injurious language: I am sorry to learn he (meaning plaintiff) is a Mason, for Missouri Masonry has passed upon an issue which his case would bring up.' And in said article, and for like purpose, defendant used the following language: 'Masonry has no place for a man who does not believe in a personal God'-thereby not only improperly referring to Masonry, but implying and so charging the plaintiff an unfit person to be a member of said organization.

"Plaintiff further says that in furtherance of said design, and intending to injure plaintiff in said profession, defendant Briggs in said article published the following language: 'I have nothing to do with the affairs of Drury College. Its curators must pass upon the fitness of men for places in its faculty, but, as a Christian minister, I am unable to see how any manly man can eat the bread of a Christian college while seeking to undermine the foundation of Christian faith and substituting a fad wornout in India for the well-tried verities of Christian belief'-thereby in furtherance of said design, charging plaintiff with being unmanly and with using his position as instructor in Drury College in an underhand and unmanly way, and thereby charging plaintiff with violation of his duty to Drury College as said instructor. All of which is false in fact, and all of which was charged with the consent and approval of the defendant George and with the intent of furnish"Plaintiff states that, in answer to said re-ing a pretext upon which the defendant Drury

"Plaintiff states that again, on April 24, 1910, said Briggs, in furtherance of said common design at the said church of which he was pastor, preached another so-called sermon on the passage, 'Why do men not like to retain God in their thoughts?' 'If any man, even an angel from heaven, preach a different Gospel than this, let him be accursed'-and made such pretended sermon a pretense for a covert assault upon this plaintiff.

« PreviousContinue »