Peoples v. Detroit Post & Tribune Co.

• Citation: 20 N.W. 528,54 Mich. 457
• Parties: PEOPLES v. DETROIT POST & TRIBUNE CO.
• Decision Date: 23 September 1884
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

20 N.W. 528

54 Mich. 457

PEOPLES v. DETROIT POST & TRIBUNE CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 23, 1884

SHERWOOD, J.

This case was an action for libel, charging the plaintiff with the murder of Martha Whitla, and the commission of other crimes and offenses.

The article complained of as containing the libelous matter was published in defendant's paper of July 1, 1881, at the city of Detroit. It contains, substantially, the following charges: (1) That the plaintiff had kept Martha Whitla as his housekeeper and his mistress; (2) that he wanted to get rid of her and prevent her from collecting a note she held against him for about $400; (3) that he had committed fornication with her; (4) that she was reputed to be the plaintiff's woman; (5) that the plaintiff told one Cronin, who aided him in making preparation for her murder that he need have no fears because she had been murdered; (6) that plaintiff had employed Cronin to steal a sack to be used about the murder; (7) that plaintiff received the sack knowing Cronin had stolen it; (8) that plaintiff furnished Cronin with a wagon, to take the body to the river in, after she had been murdered; (9) that previous to the murder plaintiff's wife had left him because he committed adultery with Martha; (10) that afterwards plaintiff admitted to his wife that he had committed adultery with the girl, and at the time intimated to his wife that Martha had been murdered to get rid of her; and (11) that plaintiff paid money to convict other parties as Martha Whitla's murderers, knowing them to be innocent.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice under it that the truth of the alleged libelous statements would be proved upon the trial. Subsequently the court made an order to the effect that the defendant file a bill of particulars of the matters, the truth of which it proposed to prove under the notice given; and thereupon counsel for defendant, in pursuance of such order, filed a bill, giving, in substance the following: (1) That about January 11, 1879, Martha Whitla was in fact murdered at Detroit, and thrown into the river (2) that on the twelfth of March, 1879, her body was found but not for some time identified; (3) that she had been the housekeeper and mistress of the plaintiff; (4) the truth of the statement in the article concerning the publication by the Evening News and the suit thereon; (5) that an investigation was in progress in the police court, in which Marsh was a witness to the matters stated in the article to be provable by him, and that those matters are true; (6) that Martha Whitla was brought to Dearborn by Henry Theiss, January 10, 1879, taken to Detroit next day by Dr. Collar, and was never seen alive after that afternoon; (7) that the plaintiff contributed $150 to promote the prosecution of the Theiss boys; (8) that the foregoing facts created and justified a belief by defendant that plaintiff had knowledge of and consented to said murder, and defendant will prove that plaintiff had such knowledge and did so consent.

A number of the alleged libelous charges are not mentioned in the particulars furnished as those to be justified on the trial, among which are what the plaintiff is alleged to have said to Cronin about his need of fear and that the girl had been murdered; that plaintiff employed Cronin to steal the sack, and received it from him, knowing it to have been stolen; that the plaintiff furnished a wagon to take the murdered girl's body to the Detroit river; that plaintiff's wife left him because he committed adultery; that he confessed that crime to his wife, and intimated to her that Martha had been murdered to get rid of her; and, that Martha was known as Peoples' woman. The record purports to give us the substance of all the testimony taken at the trial, and, as appears therefrom, the justification of these last-mentioned libelous charges was substantially abandoned, as no evidence seems to have been given upon either of them. These were all libelous charges, and unless the murder of Martha Whitla by the plaintiff was proved by competent evidence it is difficult to see why the plaintiff should not have been entitled to a verdict.

The murder was not admitted by the plaintiff; neither was there any legal testimony in the case tending to show the plaintiff guilty of the homicide. The affidavit made by Cronin was not proper testimony on that point, and it should not have been admitted for that purpose. It is the only testimony that tends to show that the plaintiff was knowing to the commission of the crime charged; and, while admissible, perhaps, to show good faith on the part of the defendant, it was not competent evidence of any of the facts therein stated. The answer of the jury to the special question submitted to them upon this point has no bearing upon the case, inasmuch as it was based on testimony improperly received. I think the plaintiff's second request to charge should have been given upon this subject, and its refusal by the court was error. The request was as follows: "There is not sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to find that the plaintiff was guilty of the murder of Martha Whitla, or that he had knowledge thereof or was connected therewith."

Before it can be said that evidence preponderates showing a party to have committed the crime of murder, there must be some evidence tending to show the fact; and when the testimony shows no more than that the party accused was in the vicinity of the crime at the time when it is...