The  rule  which  permits  adverse  newspaper  criticism  of  public  officials  is
Justified  upon  the  ground  that  they  have  assumed  duties  toward  the  public;
that  the  public  has  an  interest  in  the  proper  performance  of  those  duties;
and  that  publications  made  in  good  faith,  and  for  the  purpose  of  advising
the  public  of  the  conduct  of  its  servants,  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  made  in
the  discharge  of  a  duty  which  every  citizen  owes  to  his  fellow-citizens.  The
aame  reasoning  must  justify  criticism  of  all  other  persons  who,  though  not
public  officers,  voluntarily  assume  duties  of  a  public  nature,  in  the  fit  per-
formance of  which  large  numbers  of  persons  have  an  interest.  The  most
familiar  instances  are  clergymen  and  teachers  of  public  and  private  schools.
Their  private  characters  and  motives  may  not  be  safely  maligned  by  the
preis.  To  falsely  impute  to  them  the  commission  of  crimes  or  of  acts  which,
though  not  punishable  as  criminal,  are  obviously  grossly  at  variance  with
their  callings,  and  such  as,  if  true,  ought  to  deprive  them  of  their  positions.
Is  actionable:  Chaddock  v.  Briggn,  13  Mass.  248;  McMilian  v.  Buck,  1  Binn.
178;  Demareei  v.  Haring,  6  Cow.  76;  Bayden  v.  Cowtlen,  27  Ohio  St.  292;
Bighmort  v.  Harrmgion,  3  Cool  B.,  N.  S.,  142;  Pemberion  v.  ColU,  10  Q.  &
481;  16  L.  J.  Q.  B.  403;  11  Jur.  1011;  Oai/tercole  v.  Miall,  15  Mees.  ft  W.
319;  10  Jnr.  337;  15  L.  J.  Bz.  179.    But  the  conduct  of  public  worship  bj


868  HcAllibteb  v.  Detroit  Fres  Press  Co.       [Mich.
a  olargynuui,  and  the  umi  to  which  he  pute  his  chnroh  aadTeetiy,  are  lawful
•objects  of  public  comment:  Kellp  y.  Tinting,  L.  R.  1  Q.  B.  699;  U  Week.
