Miner v. Post & Tribune Co.
Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
Parties | MINER v. POST & TRIBUNE CO. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
In an action for newspaper libel the judge instructed the jury that a portion of the article complained of was privileged, but permitted them to consider it with the rest in deciding from the general spirit of the article whether that part which was left to their consideration, was malicious. Held error.
It is matter of privilege to call public attention to the act of a judicial officer in ordering a person into confinement without a charge against him, or in requiring bail in an amount which, considering the prisoner's probable means and position in life, he is unable to pay; these are violations of the most important guaranties of constitutional freedom, and are matters of public concern.
Error to superior court of Detroit.
John Atkinson, for plaintiff.
George V.N. Lothrup and Henry M. Cheever, for defendant and appellant.
The plaintiff is, and was in June, 1881, police justice of the city of Detroit. The defendant is publisher of a daily newspaper in that city, June 23, 1881, defendant published in its paper, concerning the plaintiff, the following article "MORE OF MINER.
For this publication suit was brought by plaintiff in the superior court of Detroit. The defendant justified the publication as true.
When the case went to trial the defendant contended that the article related to matters of public interest and importance and was for that reason privileged. The judge of the superior court seems to have assented to this view, so far as the part of the article relating to the liquor law and the law against gambling was concerned, and he ruled that that portion of the article must not be considered by the jury as a ground for recovery. As to the part which relates to the two Chinamen a different conclusion was announced. "That," he said, Under this ruling the parties respectively put in their proofs to support and disprove the justification.
Very strangely, as it seems to me, when the case went to the jury the judge permitted that portion of the charge which he had ruled was privileged, and which he had altogether excluded from the jury as a ground of action, to be made the subject of comment to the prejudice of defendant. "It is privileged," he said, The general tone, then, of the article,--the part...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miner v. Post & Tribune Co.
...49 Mich. 35813 N.W. 773MINERv.POST & TRIBUNE CO.Supreme Court of MichiganFiled October 31, In an action for newspaper libel the judge instructed the jury that a portion of the article complained of was privileged, but permitted them to consider it with the rest in deciding from the general ......