Calvin O. Gott v. R. M. Pulsifer &Amp; Others

• Decision Date: 07 March 1877
• Citation: 122 Mass. 235
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Calvin O. Gott v. R. M. Pulsifer & others

122 Mass. 235

Calvin O. Gott v. R. M. Pulsifer & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

March 7, 1877

Argued November 23, 1876 [Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Tort. The declaration alleged that, at the time of the publication hereinafter referred to, the plaintiff was the owner of a certain stone figure or image, being or resembling a colossal statue of a man, which statue, figure or image was formerly exhumed at Cardiff in the State of New York, and was publicly known as the "Cardiff Giant" or "Onondaga Statue"; that the statue was of great value to the plaintiff as a scientific curiosity and for the purpose of exhibiting the same as such curiosity, and had long been a source of great gain and profit to the plaintiff by exhibiting the same as a public show; that the defendants were no November 13, 1873, the proprietors and publishers of a certain newspaper published in Boston, to wit, the Sunday Herald; that on that day the defendants published in their said paper a certain false, scandalous and [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning his said property, to wit, his said statue, figure or image, in the words following:

"The sale of the Cardiff Giant, so called, at New Orleans, for the small price of eight dollars, recalls the palmy days of that ingenious humbug. We well remember the learned remarks made by connoisseurs in this city when it was exhibited in a vacant store quite near our office. While the vulgar herd only looked on in silence, seeing a colossal figure which excited their curiosity, but which they did not attempt to explain, the Harvard professors and other learned men traced its pedigree by their knowledge of artistic history, and constructed theories as to its origin, which at once displayed their erudition, and helped to advertise the show. But our professors and learned men were not the only victims of the sell. A distinguished professor of Yale discussed learnedly upon it in the Galaxy Magazine. He demonstrated beyond a doubt that the statue was authentic, that it was antique, and that it was a colossal monolith. He ciphered it down that it was a Phoenician image of the god Baal, and found no difficulty in proving to his own satisfaction that it was brought to America by a Phoenician party of adventurers, who sailed in one of the ships of Tarshish, and that it was buried by the idolaters to save it from desecration by the hordes of savages who overpowered and destroyed the Phoenicians. He accounted for several marks and symbols upon the image, which were unmistakably Phoenician. Not long afterwards the man who brought the colossal monolith to light confessed that it was a fraud, and the learned gentlemen, who had indorsed its authenticity, were left as naked as the statue itself."

The declaration then alleged that the statue had never been sold in New Orleans for eight dollars, and that it had never been there; that, by reason of said libel, the plaintiff was prevented from selling his said statue, and thereby caused to lose $ 30,000, and that one Thomas Palmer had, prior to the publication of said libel, agreed to purchase said statue and to pay therefor in real estate then worth a large sum, to wit, the sum of $ 30,000, but that by reason of said libel said Palmer was caused and induced [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] to carry out his agreement, and wholly aban

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., the publication of the article was admitted by the defendants and also the fact that it referred to the plaintiff's statue. Both the plaintiff and Palmer testified that the latter agreed in writing to purchase one half of the statue and offered for the same real estate, worth at the time of the agreement $ 17,000, and that on account of the defendants' publication he refused to carry out his agreement.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the statement in regard to the sale at New Orleans was false, and offered evidence concerning the value of the statue as a scientific curiosity; but the judge ruled that the question of its value in that respect, or for purposes of exhibition was immaterial.

The only evidence put in by the defendants was that one of them testified that he wrote the article as a humorous comment on an article which he saw in the Chicago Tribune, purporting to give a detailed account of the sale of the Cardiff Giant at New Orleans for $ 8, and commenting at length thereon; and that he did not know the plaintiff, and wrote without malice.

The plaintiff requested forty-one instructions to the jury, of which it is only necessary to state the following:

"9. That if the defendants published said article heedlessly and carelessly, without due regard to the rights of...