People v. Jackman

• Citation: 96 Mich. 269,55 N.W. 809
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 30 June 1893
• Parties: PEOPLE v. JACKMAN.

55 N.W. 809

96 Mich. 269

PEOPLE v. JACKMAN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 30, 1893

Exceptions from circuit court, Marquette county; John W. Stone, Judge.

George C. Jackman was convicted of criminal libel, and excepts. Exceptions sustained.

Evidence that the facts alleged in the complaint as libelous had for a long time been currently reported and believed in the community, and that they had been so reported to defendant was properly excluded.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by GRANT, J.:

The respondent was convicted of criminal libel under Act No. 210 Pub. Acts 1885. Section 1 reads as follows: "That any person who shall falsely and maliciously, by word, writing sign, or otherwise, accuse, attribute, or impute to another the commission of any crime, felony, or misdemeanor, or any infamous or degrading act, or impute or attribute to any female a want of chastity, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof for the first offense before any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and costs of prosecution, or imprisonment in the county jail of the county in which such conviction shall be had, not exceeding ninety days, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court." Section 2 provides that no justice of the peace shall have jurisdiction to try any person for a second or subsequent violation, but that when one is charged with a second violation the justice must hold an examination, and bind the accused over for trial in the circuit court if he finds probable cause. 3 How. St. �� 9315 9315a. The portions of the three articles published in the Times, the newspaper edited by respondent, under the dates of October 20th, 21st, and 22d, and set forth in the information, are as follows:

October 20th: "The would-be humorous article in yesterday morning's Mining Journal concerning the gasoline explosion in 'Berney, Black & Co.'s sweat box' establishment on Saturday evening accused the editor of the Times of being sore, and endeavoring to do 'some roasting' himself. In that (as in thousands of other things) the 'monopoly sheet' was mistaken, and once more jumped at conclusions. 'Tis true the editor of the Times was the unlucky victim who was seated in the 'infernal machine,' and received a terrible roasting, but when the editorial item referred to was written he was unable to write or think of anything but his physical injuries. The author of that item is not classed as the editor of the Times, and does not desire to 'roast' anybody, but while misfortune reigns he will endeavor to do business at the old stand. It is well understood that accidents will at times occur, but the one of Saturday night was far more honorable than being 'rotten-egged,' or having an 'arm broken,' of which the victims of both desire but little said."

October 21st: "The Times is not the only paper in Marquette at the present time that has been so unfortunate as to be represented by persons who do tricky things on the sly. But it intends to retain on its staff only such as can show a clean record for the past as well as present life, and no man upon it can rise to the dignity of managing editor whose history is identified with institutions of a disreputable character, even if he does not bear upon his person the marks of adventure at such places."

October 22d: "In '1873,' while driving along a beautiful thoroughfare in Wisconsin, two vehicles collided, and, strange as it may seem, one person, an innocent, (?) peaceable, law-abiding citizen, was hurled to the ground, and received an injury, the marks of which he will carry to his grave. Again, strange as it may seem, the facts have just been explained. There was no 'ice in the wheels,' and why the collision should occur is a mystery. It is fortunate that in this age of the world excuses are numberless, and even at the eleventh hour a sinner may try and seek redemption in various forms. About three years ago Dr. Goerrs (whom the victim of the above-claimed accident ridiculed as being a fakir) explained to the people of Marquette how the accident did happen, and produced $1,000 as a proof of his assertions, but the 'Wisconsin unfortunate' had neither money nor disposition to dispute the charge until after the doctor had left the city. Our 'Wisconsin granger,' who brought nothing to this city aside from a brazen face, a vile tongue, contempt for his fellow men, and a hue and cry for monopoly, cannot expect, after eighteen years have elapsed, to try and pawn off such an unfortunate tale on an innocent public."

The complaining witness, Mr. Russell, editor of the Mining Journal, met with an accident some years before these publications, in which his arm was broken. After the article of October 21st in the Times, Mr. Russell published an article in the Journal, stating how the accident occurred. The article of October 22d in the Times was written in reply to this. The information contained appropriate innuendoes, explaining the meaning of the article, but did not set forth the exact language claimed to have been used by Dr. Goerrs in his speeches to the people of Marquette. Respondent was convicted in both the justice's and circuit court. In the circuit court his counsel moved to quash the information for the following reasons: (1) Extrinsic matter should not have been introduced in the complaint; (2) complaint is bad for duplicity; (3) the articles published are not libelous in themselves; (4) while complaint recites the statements of Dr. Goerrs, it does not allege that libel was published of and concerning that matter. This motion was overruled.

H. O. Young, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Peters & Shaull, for defendant.

GRANT, J., (after stating the facts.)

1. The extrinsic matter...