Miner v. Post & Tribune Co.

Decision Date31 October 1882
PartiesMINER v. POST & TRIBUNE CO.
CourtMichigan 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.

COOLEY, J.

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.

"A few days since a complaint was made before Justice Miner against a Chinaman. Without the assent of the complainant Miner inserted the name of a second Chinaman, against whom no complaint was made, and whom no one charged with being connected with the offense.

"At the examination afterwards held Miner admitted that he inserted the second name on his own motion, and though the evidence of the complainant completely exonerated the second man, and it was shown that he was not present at the commission of the alleged offense, Miner bound him over for trial under heavy bonds. Judge Swift, on the facts coming to his knowledge, released this second man.

"There is no accounting for Miner's action. In this case it was an inexcusable outrage. If he would enforce the law upon the multitude of offenders brought before him, if he would discharge his duty on the complaints for violating the liquor laws and gambling laws, people would be more lenient in their judgment of him. But he does not and apparently will not. Instead of that he turns upon a helpless Chinaman, who has no political influence to sustain him and much prejudice to combat. It was a contemptible act and a cowardly act. And instead of satisfying the people who are demanding that he shall enforce the laws, it will excite their disgust and invite them to ask why it is that Justice Miner prosecutes and oppresses the weak and permits the strong to go unwhipt of justice."

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, "is a specific charge. It accuses the plaintiff of direct moral malfeasance, so to speak; accused him of a direct act of oppression and a direct outrage; accused him of an act nearly amounting to a crime. It does not purport to be a report of the trial. It in no sense purports to give the proceedings of it; but it gives such conclusions as are drawn by whoever made the report, either from hearing the trial or from information given. Under these circumstances it appears to me that the defendant stands upon a very different basis from an accusation based upon a report. A general expression of an opinion, that in a certain direction a public officer does not do his duty, is undoubtedly privileged. Comments made upon a report would be privileged, provided the report itself justified those comments. My impression is that there is no report here. There is the opinion of whoever wrote the article, gleaned either from what he heard or what he saw. That is all there is of it. If it was a report, and from the report the paper had come to the conclusion that Miner had acted improperly, I think the paper would have been privileged in saying so. But instead of making a report, there is simply an assertion that the result of everything was in substance that Justice Miner had been guilty of what every person must acknowledge to be a very great outrage, to-wit: oppressing a person because he was poor and obscure, a Chinaman, one who had no influence or friends. That imputes specific moral delinquency." 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, "and therefore not libelous. I think the general spirit of the article may be commented upon, but only with that view; not that the matter of gambling and liquor laws can in any way be the subject of damages, but the tone of the article generally,--I don't see how I can exclude that. Here is an artlcle which, if you will observe it, says, 'there is no accounting for Miner's action in this case. It was an inexcusable outrage. If he would enforce the law upon the multitude of offenders brought before him; if he would discharge his duty in the complaints for violating the liquor laws or gambling laws, people would be more lenient in their judgments of him. But he does not, and apparently will not. Instead of that he turns upon a helpless Chinaman,' etc. You see the two are connected together." The general tone, then, of the article,--the part...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Miner v. Post & Tribune Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 31, 1882
    ...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 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT