Washington Post Co v. Chaloner

• Decision Date: 02 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 316,316
• Citation: 63 L.Ed. 987,250 U.S. 290,39 S.Ct. 448
• Parties: WASHINGTON POST CO. v. CHALONER
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

250 U.S. 290

39 S.Ct. 448

63 L.Ed. 987

WASHINGTON POST CO.

v CHALONER.

No. 316.

Argued April 22 and 23, 1919.

Decided June 2, 1919.

Messrs. Wilton J. Lambert, Joseph W. Bailey, and Rudolph H. Yeatman, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Messrs. E. F. Colladay, of Washington, D. C., and Sidney J. Dudley, of Hampton, Va., for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Saturday, April 3, 1909, the Washington Post, a daily newspaper of wide circulation published by petitioner, contained the following item:

'John Armstrong Chaloner (Chanler), brother of Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler, of New York, and former husband of Amelie Rives, the authoress, now Princess Troubetskoy, is recuperating at Shadeland, the country home of Maj. Thomas L. Emry, near Weldon, N. C., where he had gone to recuperate following a nervous breakdown as a result of the tragedy at his home, Merry Mills, near Cobham, on March 15, when he shot and killed John Gillard, while the latter was abusing his wife, who had taken refuge at Merry Mills, Chaloner's home. Following the shooting, Chaloner suffered a nervous breakdown, and was ordered by his physician to take a long rest. He decided to visit his old friend, Maj. Emry, who, with Chaloner, was instrumental in founding Roanoke Rapids, a manufacturing town 5 miles from Weldon. Chaloner arrived at Weldon after traveling all night and was immediately hurried to Shadeland, where he received medical attention and temporary relief.'

Claiming damages on account of shame, infamy, and disgrace inflicted, respondent brought an action against the publishing company in the Supreme Court, District of Co lumbia. He alleged:

'The said defendant, meaning and intending * * * to charge the plaintiff with the crime of murder in the killing of one John Gillard, when on the contrary the fact was, as defendant well knew, that while the plaintiff was engaged in a most laudable effort to prevent the said Gillard from murdering his wife, * * * the said Gillard was in fact killed by accidental explosion of a pistol,' and 'contriving and intending to deprive the plaintiff of his said good name, credit, and reputation, and to bring him into scandal and disrepute among his friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, * * * falsely and maliciously composed and published and caused to be composed and published of and concerning the plaintiff in a certain newspaper,' etc., the above-quoted item.

Upon respondent's request the trial court charged:

'The jury are instructed that the words contained in the publication sued on by the plaintiff herein imply that the crime of murder has been committed by the plaintiff and are actionable per se.'

It further said to them:

'The only question really for you to consider is how much damages the plaintiff should be allowed. You ought to allow him compensation; no special damages have been shown and only general damages can be allowed, but where the libel is published, where words are published of the plaintiff which constituted a libel, which charge him with having committed a crime, for instance, as in this case, the law presumes that the plaintiff has been damaged, without proof of any special damage, because the law takes notice of the fact that a libel travels, and it comes to a great many different readers, and that it would be impossible for a plaintiff to trace out the circulation of the libel, and show by whom it...