Zier v. Hofflin
| Decision Date | 03 January 1885 |
| Citation | 21 N.W. 862,33 Minn. 66 |
| Parties | Edward B. Zier v. Joseph R. Hofflin |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Lochren, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for plaintiff for $ 1,500. The case is stated in the opinion.
Order affirmed.
Woolley & Reed, for appellant.
The words charged are not libellous. Robertson v McDougall, 4 Bing. 670; People v. Jerome, 1 Mich. 142; Bennett v. Williamson, 4 Sandf. 60; Homer v. Engelhardt, 117 Mass. 539.
Ripley & Morrison, for respondent.
According to the complaint, the defendant falsely and maliciously caused to be published, concerning the plaintiff in a newspaper called the "St. Paul & Minneapolis Advertiser," widely circulated in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, this: "Wanted, E. B. Zier, M. D., to pay a drug bill," -- in a part of the newspaper with the heading "Wanted," and among other similarly suggestive items, of which this may be taken as a specimen: "Wanted, to pay his room rent, and not go dead-heading his way;" and to further publish it, defendant cut the item concerning the plaintiff out of the paper, pasted it upon a postal card, and sent it through the post-office to a young lady in Minneapolis to whom plaintiff was engaged to be married. Defendant meant by the publication that the plaintiff was an absconding debtor, and a dishonest person not entitled to the confidence and respect of the community.
Defendant contends that the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. We do not think the words published come under the third class in the classification given in Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 30 Minn. 41, 14 N.W. 62, i. e., of words clearly defamatory on their face. For the only facts suggested by them standing alone, -- to wit, that the plaintiff owes a drug bill and that the creditor wishes him to pay, -- do not necessarily impute anything wrong to plaintiff. But words which may be innocent of themselves may be rendered libellous by the place and circumstances of their publication, for such place and circumstances may impress on them a meaning and suggestion which, standing alone, they do not have. Thus, though the words here do not of themselves impute wrong, they might be published in such a place or under such circumstances as to make them capable of naturally conveying the impression that plaintiff had been guilty of dishonest practices, either in contracting the debt or in withholding payment of it. And so they come under the second class mentioned in the case referred to, of words reasonably susceptible of a defamatory as well as of an innocent meaning. What meaning they would naturally convey was for the jury to determine, in view of the circumstances of their publication. In this respect the case is similar to Woodling v. Knickerbocker, 31 Minn. 268, 17 N.W. 387.
Although the publication of the words alleged is admitted in the answer, it was proper for plaintiff to put the number of the newspaper in...
To continue reading
Request your trial