Adams v. Lawson

• Citation: 58 Va. 250
• Parties: ADAMS v. LAWSON.
• Decision Date: 30 January 1867
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

58 Va. 250

ADAMS v. LAWSON.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

January 30, 1867

1. In an action of libel, when the writing on its face relates to the plaintiff and the words are libellous in themselves, the innuendo is unnecessary, and may be rejected as surplusage.

2. To constitute a libel it is not necessary that the writing should impute an offence which may be indicted and punished. It is sufficient if the language tends to injure the reputation of the party, to throw contumely, or to reflect shame and disgrace upon him, or to hold him up as an object of scorn, ridicule or contempt. And the words will be understood in their plain and ordinary import.

3. A libel may be in the form of insinuation as well as of positive assertion.

4. To write to the plaintiff--" As you will make considerable by being summoned to court, I would advise you to go and pay George Bowman the balance you owe him for his wild hogs you killed," is libellous. " I hope you will stop swearing lies about the trees," and " I will close this letter by advising you either to quit lying or preaching, one," are libellous.

5. The letter containing the libel is sent sealed. The writer afterwards states in the presence of several persons, that he had got W. to write the letter for him and he had signed his own name to it, and kept a copy; and states the contents of the letter; but without producing it or a copy of it. This was a publication of the libel.

6. In an action for libel, the plaintiff may introduce evidence in chief of his general good character, before the defendant has introduced any evidence.

This was an action on the case for a libel in the Circuit court of Patrick county brought in November, 1857, by William Lawson against Notley P. Adams. The declaration after the usual colloquium set out the letter (omitting the references to the defendant and plaintiff), as follows:

" Mr. William Lawson, I understand by one of the grand jury (meaning the grand jury that presented the defendant for perjury) that you appeared before the jury (meaning the said grand jury) and made oath, that at the farthest there was not more than eight trees cut in the two fields (meaning thereby the two fields upon the fences around which the plaintiff swore that not more than eight trees had been cut, whereas the defendant had sworn in a former prosecution that more than eight trees were cut down upon said fence), and if you did, you swore -- a lie, knowingly and willfully; for I can prove that there was nine on one field and seven on the Underwood field; though I was not surprised at your swearing that, after your swearing as you did about the presentment between Jerman Lee and myself while I was absent from home. I understand that the voice of the church was, that they (meaning the Baptist church of which the plaintiff was a member) would as leave fellowship stealing as to fellowship old Cox--(meaning thereby an old Baptist preacher in Carroll county, Virginia)--the way he acted about the land, offering to sell under the power of attorney in the name of James Powell, and then bringing suit in the name of others, making out Powells claim not good to the land; and William Conner says he blames you more than he (meaning said Conner) does Cox. As you will make considerable by being summoned to court, I would advise you to go and pay George Bowman the balance you owe him (meaning George Bowman) for his (meaning said Bowman) wild hogs you killed (meaning thereby that the plaintiff had killed and stolen said George Bowman's wild hogs); and the four you killed last fall I believe to belong to Abram Adams (meaning thereby that the plaintiff had feloniously stolen Abram Adams' hogs). I suppose Abram (meaning said Abram Adams) is able to lose his (meaning said Adams' hogs), but I would advise you to go and pay Bowman (meaning said George Bowman), as he (meaning said Bowman) is a poor man. I want you to call at William Bryant's as you go home, and ask him (said Bryant) to go and show you the number of trees that was on the Nauman field, as Bryant helped to cut them (meaning said trees) up, and David Lewis helped to cut them down; and then I hope you will stop swearing lies about the number of trees. I say now, as I said in the commencement of this letter, that if you swore that there was not more than eight trees, you or any one else swore a lie.

I will close this letter by advising you either to quit lying or preaching, one (meaning thereby that the plaintiff, although a preacher of the gospel, had been guilty of swearing lies) and if you want to know how you stand in this community, I would just refer you to Green Conner, as he tore down an advertisement about you, so he (meaning said Green Conner) told me, as I suppose, as Green (meaning said Green Conner) told me that they (meaning authors of the said advertisement) charged you in that (meaning said advertisement) of being a hog thief. All your object in acting as you do towards me is just to run me to costs, and I disregard it, as I am able to bear it.

Yours & c.,

NOTLEY P. ADAMS."

The defendant demurred to the declaration on the ground, that the innuendoes, and averments of facts by way of innuendoes, were not sanctioned by the words of the letter itself, or any facts and circumstances averred by way of colloquium or inducement. He also pleaded " not guilty."

Upon the hearing, the court overruled the demurrer; and on the trial the jury found for the plaintiff eight hundred and ninety-one dollars damages; for which the court rendered a judgment. To this judgment Adams obtained a writ of error from a judge of this court.

On the trial the defendant filed two bills of exception to opinions of the court overruling his motions to exclude evidence offered by the plaintiff.

1st. The plaintiff offered in evidence to the jury as the libel for the publication of which this action was brought, the letter which is set out in the declaration.

He proved by a witness that previous to the institution of this suit the said letter was delivered to him by the defendant folded up and sealed, so as to conceal the contents from observation, and requested the deponent to deliver said letter to the plaintiff, but that the defendant did not inform the witness of the nature of the contents of said letter; and that in compliance with said request of the defendant the witness did deliver the said letter, so sealed and folded, into the hands of the plaintiff. It was also proved by another witness, that the signature to the letter was in the handwriting of the defendant. And thereupon the letter was permitted to be read to the jury without objection.

The plaintiff then introduced another witness, William Conner who testified that some time in the summer of 1857 the defendant told the witness, in the presence of other persons that he had sent a letter to the plaintiff; that he had got a certain Thomas B. Woolwine to write the said letter for him, and that he, the defendant, had signed his own name to it, and that he had kept a copy of the letter; that at the same time defendant stated to witness the contents of the letter, without however producing or exhibiting the letter, or the copy of it. The witness was then asked by the plaintiff's counsel to state to the jury what the defendant had so informed him were the contents of the letter, but the defendant by counsel objected to the witness being allowed to make said statement to the jury; which objection was overruled by the court, and the witness was allowed to proceed with the statement thus called for from him; when the witness stated that he did not recollect sufficiently what the defendant said were the contents of the letter to state them to the jury, but that at a former term of this court he was a member of the grand jury, and the grand jury were engaged during its session in inquiring into the facts connected with the delivery of a letter to the plaintiff by the defendant, with a view to the finding of an indictment against the defendant for libel, and that on that occasion a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff was proved and read, and that the contents of that letter were in substance the same with the statement made by the defendant of the contents of the letter, which he said he had caused to be written to the plaintiff by Woolwine as above stated. The witness was then shown by the plaintiff's counsel the letter above set forth, which was read in evidence to the jury in this suit, and asked to to inspect it, and say whether it was the same letter he had heard read before the grand jury; and after inspecting it, the witness stated that it was the same letter. To the admission of all which statements of the said witness in regard to the contents of said letter and the correspondence in substance with the witness' recollection of the statements made by the defendant to him of the contents of the letter he had caused to be written by Woolwine, the defendant by counsel objected, but his objections were overruled by the court, and the testimony was permitted to be given to the jury.

2d. After the plaintiff had introduced the evidence referred to in the first bill of exceptions, and before the defendant had introduced any testimony, the plaintiff offered evidence to prove his general good character, which was objected to by the defendant as not competent; but the court overruled the objection, and admitted the testimony; and the plaintiff was allowed, before the introduction of any testimony by the defendant, to introduce a number of...