Archibald v. Belleville News Democrat

• Citation: 203 N.E.2d 281,54 Ill.App.2d 38
• Decision Date: 11 December 1964
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 64-48
• Parties: Betty Jane ARCHIBALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLEVILLE NEWS DEMOCRAT, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 281

203 N.E.2d 281

54 Ill.App.2d 38

Betty Jane ARCHIBALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLEVILLE NEWS DEMOCRAT, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 64-48.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Dec. 11, 1964.

Zeno Middleton, St. Louis, for appellant.

Baltz & Guymon, Belleville, for appellee.

DOVE, Presiding Justice.

The Circuit Court of St. Clair County entered an order sustaining defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant in bar of plaintiff's action and for costs. To reverse this order plaintiff appeals.

In her amended complaint, filed November 21, 1963, plaintiff alleged that she was a resident of Belleville, Illinois, and was born on October 3, 1943; that on August 31, 1959, she was a person of good name, fame and repute and held in high esteem by her acquaintances and general public; that she is a professional entertainer, and does specialty dancing both for profit and for charity. The amended complaint then alleged that upon the occasion referred to in the letter which forms the basis of this action for libel, she was riding in a parade in said City of Belleville, attired in her dancing costume, to advertise a dance, the profits of which were for the benefit of the pediatrics department of St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Belleville.

It was then alleged that the defendant was the publisher of the Belleville News Democrat, a newspaper of general circulation, and that on August 31, 1959, it maliciously printed in said newspaper a letter containing false, defamatory a letter matter concerning the plaintiff, viz:

'Dear Sir:

'A few nights ago we saw the most disgusting thing in our life. There was this girl, about 14 years old, riding around in the back of a convertible, half naked, and twirling a hula hoop. If it was a man doing this, he'd have been arrested for indecent exposure, causing a public nuisance, or just plain drunk. Now tell me why this girl was allowed to do such a thing. We were under the impression that the authorities had banned strip teasing. Wouldn't this be under the same heading? The very idea of it, exposing little children to something like this, parading around on the public square, the streets and stores in such an outfit. We would like to hear other people's views on this subject. Mr. and Mrs.'

It was then alleged that these statements were made of and concerning the plaintiff; that they accused her of the criminal offenses of criminal exposure, lewdness, and public drunkenness, were wholly false, and were fairly and reasonably capable of, and did brand the plaintiff with the cruel name of 'stripper', and her opportunity to develop a stage or entertainment career was destroyed or diminished.

The amended complaint then averred that on the following day, September 1, 1959, defendant aggravated the wrong by publishing a picture of the plaintiff in its newspaper of that day in 'connection with the affair which the plaintiff's service and the parade benefited.'

To sustain the judgment of the trial court, counsel for appellee insists that the publication of the letter by the defendant does not identify the plaintiff, and the letter does not indicate that the article was written of and concerning the plaintiff, and that the alleged libelous words are not reasonably or fairly capable of the cosntruction placed upon them by the plaintiff.

The amended complaint avers that the statements made in the letter complained of were libelous per se in that plaintiff was accused of (a) indecent exposure, (b) lewdness, and (c) public drunkenness, and that these charges injured her in her profession, and accused her of (a) strip teasing, (b) appearing in public half naked, (c) causing a public nuisance, (d) public drunkenness, and (e) exposing little children to half nakedness, indecent exposure, drunkenness and strip teasing.

In the early case of McKee v. Ingalls, 5 Ill (4 Scam) 30, p. 33, it is said that the common sense rule is that the alleged libelous words are to be taken and understood in their common acceptation. In Kulesza v. Chicago Daily News, Inc., 311 Ill.App. 117, p. 125, 35 N.E.2d 517, it is said: that the law is well settled that a motion to dismiss will be sustained if the words claimed...