Sweeney v. Baker et al.

Citation13 W.Va. 158
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Decision Date27 April 1878
PartiesSweeney v. Baker et al.
1. Jf a declaration in a libel suit set forth, in what is drawn in the

form of one count, that the defendant on a given day pubiished a libel against the plaintiff, containing in one part certain specified libelous allegations, and also containing in another part certain other specified libelous allegations of an entirely dif ferent character, this is nevertheless but one count, it being entirely formal, by the rules of the common law, to set forth in this manner all the libelous allegations published at one time.

2. To the two distinct libelous allegations, contained in such a

count, distinct pleas could be riled.

3. Under our statute law no demurrer will lie in any case, because

of duplicity in a declaration.

4. Under the 8th section of article 3 of the constitution of West

Virginia, which provides, that "in prosecutions and civil suits for libel the truth may be given in evidence; and if it shall appear to the jury, that the matter, charged as libelous, is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the verdict shall be for the defendant. Held:

I. The truth, and that the publication was made with good motives and for justifiable ends, can not be given in evidence under the general issue; but if given in evidence under the plea of justification, they may, though not amounting to a full justification, be considered, either as a mitigation or aggravation, as the evidence may be strong or weak.

IT. A general plea, that the libelous matter charged is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, is not a good plea, where the libelous matter is a general charge.

III. In such case the plea, to be good, must specify the particular facts, which show the general charge to be true; and must, unless the declaration shows it on its face, further allege the particular facts which show, that the end, for which the publication was made, was justifiable; and it would be insufficient, without so doing, to allege generally, that the motives were good and the end justifiable.

IV. These rules apply equally to suits for common law, to libels, and to statutory suits for the publication of insulting words.

5. A statutory suit for insulting words can be brought, though the

words used were such, as would sustain a suit at common law, and though they were published or written.

6. A plea ought to be rejected, which is an allegation of the truth

of a distinct poition of the libelous charges, contained in a count for a common law libel, and that it was published with good motives and justifiable ends, when the portion of the charge thus justified was not at common law libelous, as such portion of the charge inserted in the declaration must be regarded as surplusage. But such plea ought to be received, if pleaded to such a portion of the charges in a count in a suit, bitought under the statute for insulting words, as no distinct portion of such charges can be treated by the court as surplusage.

7. An editor of a newspaper has no peculiar privilege of publish-

ing, what is injurious to another. He can only publish with impunity that, which any other person would have an equal right to publish in a newspaper.

8. An editor of a newspaper, or any other citizen, has a right to

publish in a newspaper any allegations, true or false, with good motives, or maliciously, in reference to the physical or mental qualifications of a candidate for an office in the gift of the people.

9. 'But if a publication be made in a newspaper of such a candidate with reference to his moral qualifications, which is libelous in its character, the party making such a publication may be held liable therefor in a suit for libel, unless he can prove the charges made to be true. It will not in such case be sufficient to prove, that the party publishing had good reason to believe, and did believe, them to be true, as a publication of this character is not even conditionally privileged. From the publication of such libelous charges the law implies malice > as well as damages to the plaintiff; and the jury may therefore on proof of the publication only render a verdict for substantial damages.

10. Comments may be made in a newspaper on the acts or conduct of a candidate for an office, in the gift of the people, with impunity, if such comments are made bona fide and not maliciously, even though they be unjust, provided that the acts or conduct commented on are in fact, what they are represented to be in the publication.

11. There is copied by the clerk in the record a certificate, signed by the judge, stating, that a demurrer to a declaration had been filed and overruled by the court, but that the clerk had not entered the filing of the demurrer on the record. This memorandum is no part of the record.

12. If a rejected plea is by order of the court madeja part of the record, and the order book shows, that its rejection was excepted to, the Supreme Court of Appeals will review the action of the court in rejecting such plea, though no formal bill of exceptions was taken to the rejection of such plea.

13. If a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion for a new trial are made simultaneously, they may properly be both acted upon by the court; as under such circumstances the motion in arrest of judgment can not be regarded as an admission, that the verdict was unobjectionable.

14. Several pleas are filed, and several issues made on them, ami the record states, that the jury was sworn to try the issue joined and find a verdict, which is responsive to all the issues; and judgment is entered thereon. This court will not reverse such judgment, because of the manner, in which the record states the jury was sworn.

15. The record states, that a general replication is filed to a special plea, and issue joined. But no written replication appears in the record. This is no error, for which an appellate court will reverse a judgment entered on a verdict.

16. The Supreme Court of Appeals will not reverse the judgment of a circuit court, refusing to grant a new trial in a libel suit, because the damages are excessive, unless they are so enormous, as to furnish evidence of partiality, passion, corruption or prejudice on the part of the jury.

17. A new trial will not be granted, because a juror is alleged to have made up his mind on the merits of the case, before he was called on the jury; unless it appears from the whole case, that the party seeking the new trial suffered injustice from the fact, that such juror served.

Writ of error and supersedeas to a judgment of the circuit court of Ohio county, rendered on the 18th day of July, 1876, in an action of trespass on the case for libel, then in said court pending, wherein James W. Sweeney was plaintiff, and Lewis Baker, William J. Johnston, William H. Taney and James B. Taney were defendants.

Hon. Thayer Melvin, Judge of the first judicial circuit, rendered the judgment complained of.

Green, President, furnishes the following statement of the case:

James W. Sweeney at September rules, 1874, filed in the circuit court of Ohio county, his declaration in an action, on the case for libel against Lewis Baker, William H. Taney, William J. Johnston and James B. Taney.

The declaration consisted of three counts, count was as follows:

The first

"Jajmes W. Sweeney, the plaintiff in this suit, complains! of Lewis Baker, William H. Taney, William J. Johnston and James B. Taney, proprietors of the Wheeling Register, the defendants in this suit, who have been summoned to answer of a plea of trespass on the case for libel, for that, whereas the said James W. Sweeney is a good, true, honest, upright and worthy citizen of Ohio county, West Virginia, and as such has always behaved and conducted himself, and until the committing of the several grievances and injuries as hereinafter mentioned, was always reputed, esteemed and accepted by and amongst his neighbors, acquaintances and other good ajnd worthy citizens, to whom he was in anywuse known, to be a person of good name, fame, credit and moralsl of honest demeanor and conduct, at Ohio county. And wjhereas, also, the said plaintiff hath not ever been guilty, j or until the time of the committing of the grievances fly said defendants, as hereinafter mentioned, been suspectpd to have been guilty of the offenses and miscon- duct, hereinafter mentioned to have been charged upon and imputed to him by the said defendants, or of any other offenses or misconduct, by means of which said several premises the said plaintiff, before the committing of the several grievances, hereinafter mentioned, had deservedly obtained the good opinion and credit of all his neighbors and other good and worthy citizens of said county and State, to whom he is in anywise known, at Ohio county aforesaid. Yet the said defendants, well knowing the premises, but greatly envying the happy state and condition of the said plaintiff, and contriving, and wickedly and maliciously intending, to injure him in his said good name, fame, credit and morals, and to bring'him into public scandal, infamy and disgrace with and amongst all his neighbors, acquaintances and other good and worthy citizens of said county and State, and to cause it to be suspected and believed by those neighbors, acquaintances and citizens, that the said plaintiff had been, and was, guilty of the offenses and misconduct, hereinafter mentioned, to have been charged upon and imputed to him by the said defendants, and to vex, harass and oppress him the said plaintiff, on the 3 5th day of October, 1873, at the county aforesaid, falsely, wickedly and maliciously, did compose and publish, cause and procure to be published, and print and cause and procure to be printed, of and concerning him, the said plaintiff, in the Wheeling Daily Register, a newspaper owned, controlled, managed, printed and published by the said defendants in the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
129 cases
  • England v. Daily Gazette Co., 10930
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 3, 1958
    ...or written publication imputing to another a crime or moral delinquency is actionable per se, without proof of special damages. Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W.Va. 158 * * * '. See Alderson v. Kahle, 73 W.Va. 690, 80 S.E. 1109, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 1198; Aylor v. Gibbs, 143 Va. 644, 129 S.E. 696; Payne v......
  • Near v. State of Minnesota Olson
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1931
    ...Cr. R. 275, 22 S. W. 923, 40 Am. St. Rep. 776; Mitchell v. Grand Lodge, 56 Tex Civ. App. 306, 309, 121 S. W. 178; Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W. Va. 158, 182, 31 Am. Rep. 757; Citizens Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Montgomery Light & Water Co. (C. C.) 171 F. 553, 556; Willis v. O'Connell (D. C.) 231 ......
  • Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 15804
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 10, 1983
    ...interest); England v. Daily Gazette Co., supra (commentary on the character and conduct of public officers and employees); Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W.Va. 158 (1878) (commentary on candidates for political The second complete defense to an allegation of defamation is truth. Article III, § 8 of t......
  • State ex rel. Crouser v. Mercer, 10750
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 15, 1956
    ...it is a part of the record. The order of the court rejecting it does not order it to be a part of the record, and according to Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W.Va. 158, it cannot be so considered; but as that order numbers the paper and calls it a plea, we think that under the liberal principles stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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