Caruth v. Richeson

• Citation: 96 Mo. 186,9 S.W. 633
• Parties: CARUTH v. RICHESON et al.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1888
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

9 S.W. 633

96 Mo. 186

CARUTH v. RICHESON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 12, 1888.

1. APPEAL — REVIEW — WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

The supreme court of Missouri will in no case interfere with a verdict for the defendant on the ground that it is against the evidence, unless it satisfactorily appears that the verdict was the result of corruption, prejudice, or passion.

2. SAME — MATTERS NOT APPARENT OF RECORD.

Where the record does not show that any objections were made or exceptions saved to the action of the trial court in giving instructions, and refused instructions asked by appellant are not in the record, the rulings of the court in these respects cannot be considered.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; AMOS H. THAYER, Judge.

Action for libel, brought by David W. Caruth against Thomas Richeson and others. Verdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Martin, Laughlin & Kern, for appellant. Hitchcock, Madill & Finkelnburg, for respondents.

BLACK, J.

Plaintiff sued for $50,000 damages in an action of libel, and appealed from a judgment in favor of defendants. The defendants, 12 in number, were sworn as grand jurors at the October term, 1883, of the St. Louis criminal court. The judge in his charge, among other things, read to them a report made by the grand jury at the previous July term, in which it is stated that there existed in St. Louis a well-organized "ring" in the interest of professional gamblers and lottery dealers; and they were instructed to give the matter a thorough investigation. The grand jurors made their final report in writing, signed by all of them, which was read by the judge, filed by the clerk, and contains these words, of which complaint is made: "A corrupt combination of unprincipled and notorious persons, and certain persons holding offices of the state, under appointment of the governor, has for a considerable time existed for the purpose of unlawfully controlling and using the police force of this city in the promotion and continuance of gambling and lotteries and for other unlawful purposes. The members of this combination, outside of those belonging to the police board, have possessed and exercised such an influence upon its members belonging to the board that they have in many important instances dictated and controlled the policy of the board. Those commissioners subject to the corrupt influences and power have latterly constituted a majority of the board, and by either willing or forced submission to the commands and behests of the combination have done, or permitted to be done, acts which must have been contrary to their honest and upright judgment. The late chief of police, removed from his office without apparent cause, has been solicited by members of this combination to permit the maintenance of fraudulent schemes and practices in open and direct violation of law. He has been commanded to bestow upon individuals, against his active remonstrance, privileges which rightly belong to none. He has been compelled to proceed from one house of prostitution to another, and assure the inmates that they would not be interfered with in their evil and unlawful business. Members of the police force have been suspended or removed at the suggestion or request of the corrupt combination, irrespective of any consideration as to their efficiency; and worthless and inefficient officers have by the same powers been retained. The officers and members of the force, through like immoral and unlawful influences, have been hampered and restricted in the honest and faithful performance of their duty." The defendants plead by way of a general denial only. The board of police commissioners is composed of five persons, four of whom are appointed by the governor; the mayor of the city is, ex officio, the fifth. Plaintiff was, and for about two years had been, a member of the board, holding his office by appointment of the governor.

Error is assigned to the action of the court in giving instructions to the jury, but the record does not show that any objections were made, or exceptions saved. The refused instructions asked by the plaintiff are not found in the record. For these reasons we cannot review the rulings of the court relating to the giving and refusing to give instructions. The jury returned the following verdict: "We, the jury in the case," etc., "find for defendants, sufficient proof not having been furnished that said Caruth was meant in the publication uttered by defendants." This verdict, it is contended, is against the evidence, and should have been set aside; and this presents really the only question in the case.

...