Reese v. Fife

• Decision Date: 14 July 1925
• Docket Number: 24710
• Parties: REESE v. FIFE
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

279 S.W. 415

REESE v. FIFE

No. 24710

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

July 14, 1925

Motion for Rehearing Denied December 22, 1925.

Cooper & Neel, and Whitson Rogers, all of Kansas City, for appellant.

George H. Kelly, William Buchholz, I. B. Kimbrell, and Martin J O'Donnell, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

OPINION

HIGBEE, C.

This is an action for libel, commenced January 27, 1920, and tried in December, 1921. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for $ 20,000 actual and $ 10,000 punitive damages, from which the defendant appealed.

The evidence for the plaintiff is that he was 37 years of age at the time of the trial. At 17 he was a telegraph operator at a little station on the Pennsylvania Railroad in Indiana. In 1904 he was train dispatcher, and shortly thereafter was made chief train dispatcher at Ft. Wayne, Ind., at $ 150 per month. For five years (until 1919) he was assistant trainmaster at $ 190 per month. At 21 he married Lou Claire the daughter of Mrs. Nancy K. Jones, one of the defendant's sisters. Two children were born of this marriage, a boy and a girl. The plaintiff bought a residence at Ft. Wayne, for which he was to pay $ 5,500. He was a man of good habits, and saved his earnings to pay on the home.

The defendant lives in Kansas City, Kan., where he practiced law until December 31, 1912. He then became one of the principal promoters of Hill Top Metals Mining Company, a corporation which owned a mining property in Arizona about 20 miles distant from Rodeo, a station on a railroad in New Mexico. The corporation was capitalized at $ 10,000,000; the shares being of the par value of $ 1 each. Defendant's son, R. O. or Raleigh Fife, was superintendent and A. C. Jones, Mrs. Reese's brother, was secretary of the corporation.

Plaintiff met the defendant in 1906, and had considerable correspondence with him; their relations were very friendly. A. C. Jones frequently talked to plaintiff about the mining property, got him interested, and, early in 1917, plaintiff visited the mine, and, at the request of A. C. Jones, he sold stock to his railroad acquaintances on commission, and bought about $ 5,000 of the stock for himself. Plaintiff accompanied persons to the mines, and, if any of them bought stock, he received a commission. These commissions amounted to $ 6,000. Mrs. Reese accompanied plaintiff on one of these trips in July, 1918, and became infatuated with her bachelor cousin, R. O. Fife. Shortly after this trip, plaintiff received an anonymous letter warning him that the relations between Mrs. Reese and Raleigh were improper. Later he found a letter written by Raleigh to her. Hoping there was nothing improper in their relations, he determined, however, to discover what they were. A party of 'prospects' from Pittsburgh, Pa., planned to visit the mines in September, 1918. Mrs. Reese was anxious to join them, and it was concluded that she and the plaintiff would accompany them. The day before the party was to start plaintiff, by arrangement, received a fake telegram advising him of his mother's serious illness, and calling him to her bedside. Mrs. Reese went with the party, but plaintiff, instead of going to see his mother, accompanied by an attorney and two officers, Carey and Knott, took an earlier train and reached Rodeo in advance of the party. That night they found Raleigh and Mrs. Reese in the same bed, in a room in what is called the guest house at the mines. Plaintiff returned to his home at Ft. Wayne and commenced suit for divorce. He went to defendant's office in Chicago, on October 11th or 12th, and told him he had brought the action. Defendant became very angry, and demanded that plaintiff dismiss the suit, saying if he (plaintiff) did not, and he dragged the Fifes into this thing, that he and Raleigh Fife would make a bum out of him, and would ruin him and put him in the penitentiary; that he knew how to handle these things.

The defendant employed attorneys for Mrs. Reese and appeared at and sat with them during the trial of the action for divorce. This was in February, 1919. His nephew, A. C. Jones, who was closely associated with the defendant, testified as a witness for Mrs. Reese to acts of marital infidelity on the part of Reese. Raleigh Fife's deposition was read. After hearing the evidence, the court announced neither party was entitled to a divorce; thereupon the matter was compromised, the charge of adultery was withdrawn, and the court granted the plaintiff a divorce, and ordered him to pay the defendant $ 50 per month as alimony for the support of the children. At the trial of the instant case, there was substantial evidence that the material testimony adduced in behalf of Mrs. Reese in the action for divorce was false.

It appeared from the evidence that defendant had told his sister, Mrs. Nancy K. Jones, that he intended to prosecute and imprison Edd, the plaintiff. The defendant offered and read in evidence a letter his sister, Mrs. Jones, wrote him under date, Topeka, Kan., July 31, 1919, as follows:

'Dear Brother: I want to ask a very great favor of you that you will drop further prosecution of Edd. I do not feel that I could stand to have Lou Clare's name pulled through court again and you know it would and another reason Edd $ 50.00 a month will help her in making a living for she now has a man's job on her hands. I am not asking this for Edd for I do not know where he is or what he is doing but the children must be considered. If Perry had been living this thing would never come about and I feel that I cannot stand any more trouble in that line. Now I ask whatever you do do not tell anybody that I am writing especially Arthur and Lou Clare for nobody knows of my writing you. Connelley asks no questions and I have nothing to tell. Lant has been very good to me this spring and summer. I was sick when I came to them but am better now. Am undecided what I will do as where I will live. Oscar please burn this when you read it. Write and tell me what you are going to do. I think if I can let things go you surely can.

'Your sister.

'816 Lincoln St., Topeka, Kansas.

Lou Claire is Mrs. Reese; Perry, Mrs. Jones' deceased husband; Arthur, her son, referred to as A. C. Jones; and Lant is Mrs. Connelley, her sister. The defendant's answer to this letter is the libel declared upon in the petition, and reads:

'Rodeo, New Mexico. August 8, 1919.

'My Dear Sister: I am in receipt of yours of the 31st ult. about one Reese. I note what you say. Answering will say that I have had nothing to do with the individual. His nasty tongue, cowardly criminal acts may land him in prison, but none of my acts have contributed. What the authorities intend doing with him, I do not know. He has committed crimes enough to send him to prison a long time and if he is not sent, it will be because the authorities do not do their duties. His foul mouth has been quite annoying, but I have done nothing about it. I know that he like another infamous liar that you know very well, would not do much more than to lie and lie some more. A man who is something of a success is generally blackguarded by the would-be blackmailer and foul-mouthed liar but that is to be expected. No; personally, I shall not seek out the wretched skunk to punish him as he ought to be punished, but I shall not interfere with others doing so if they wish. I would like to forget the wretched fellow's name. Although I always had a mighty bad opinion of him, yet I treated him well. His criminal instinct manifested itself at the first opportunity, and, if he is sent to prison for his crimes, he will have no one to blame but himself. He is so involved with other criminals, as I understand it, that nothing but mere negligence on the part of the prosecuting officials will save him. I shall have no part in it. I made this rascal a lot of money. I have never done anything but kind acts towards him. In return he has lied about me, hunted up other foul dirty liars to lie about me, threatened my life, etc. It has seemed to me that he is determined to break into prison. The last I heard of him, not long ago, he was still rattling his dirty mouth and threatening what he intended to do to me. No; I shall have nothing to do with the wretched nothing. He must of course keep away from me and not bother me. I shall always defend myself against all attacks from all kinds of liars and slanderers. Now you see that personally, I am doing nothing to punish this rascal. You are in no wise involved. You could not influence him if you would. The best thing for you to do with him is to let him alone, and never refer to him in any way. Criminals and liars are bad mixtures; the one is little worse than the other.

'I hope this finds you in good health.

'Your brother, J. O. Fife.'

The defendant's answer covers 17 pages of the printed record.

Paragraph 1 admits that the defendant in August, 1919, wrote a letter to his sister, but avers he is unable to admit writing the letter set forth in the petition, and demands that plaintiff be put to the proof thereof.

Paragraph 2 avers that his letter to his sister was a privileged communication and was written in reply to a letter from her wherein she made inquiries and requested information as to defendant's attitude towards plaintiff; that the information therein and advice was for her personal benefit; that his sister did not show said letter to any one; and that whatever publication has been given to it was by plaintiff and his agents.

Paragraph 3 avers that all the statements set forth in his letter to his sister were true, as this defendant was informed, and that defendant had good reason to believe and did believe the same to be true; that at the time of writing said letter the defendant had the...