Arnold v. Jewett
| Decision Date | 04 December 1894 |
| Citation | 28 S.W. 614,125 Mo. 241 |
| Parties | Arnold, Appellant, v. Jewett et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. -- Hon. Henry M. Ramey, Judge.
Affirmed.
James W. Boyd and Samuel S. Shull for appellant.
The court committed error in the following matters, rulings and particulars, viz.: First. In allowing defendants to introduce testimony tending to show that a great many persons from different parts of Platte and Buchanan counties, in April and May, 1891, came to defendants' office and asked if George R. Arnold was selling twine for defendants, and said they had heard he (Arnold) was selling twine for them (defendants). Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 158; Anthony v Stephens, 1 Mo. 254; Moberly v. Preston, 8 Mo 462. Second. In allowing witnesses to testify on behalf of defendants that a rumor existed before June 1, 1891, in different parts of Platte and Buchanan counties to the effect that plaintiff Arnold was selling twine for defendants (respondents here). Same authorities cited, supra. Third. In refusing to give, at the close of defendants' evidence the instruction asked by plaintiff directing the jury to find for the plaintiff. Berry v. Dryden, 7 Mo. 324; Birch v. Benton, 26 Mo. 154; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 374. Fourth. In refusing to give instructions numbers 1 and 2 asked by plaintiff, telling the jury the circular was libelous on its face. Herman v. Bradstreet Co., 19 Mo.App. 227; Price v. Whitely, 50 Mo. 440; Nelson v. Musgrave, 10 Mo. 648; Keemle v. Sass, 12 Mo. 499; People v. Croswell, 3 Johns. Ca. 354; McGinnis v. Knapp & Co., 109 Mo. 131. Fifth. In refusing to give instructions 6 and 7, and also number 17, withdrawing all evidence of rumor. Anthony v. Stephens, 1 Mo. 254; Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 158; Moberly v. Preston, 8 Mo. 462. Sixth. In giving instructions A and H on its own motion. Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 374; Berry v. Dryden, 7 Mo. 324; Birch v. Benton, 26 Mo. 154. Seventh. The court erred in giving instruction number "J," which told the jury none of the instructions in the case were binding on them; that they were the sole judges of the law of libel, and informing the jury they must grope elsewhere than in court for the law of this case. R. S. 1889, sec. 2188, and cases cited in note "E" on said section. Eighth. In giving defendants' instruction number 1. Same cases cited under "6," supra. Ninth. In giving defendant's instruction number 2, telling the jury before they could find for the plaintiff they must believe all the statements in the circular were false, that they were malicious and then telling the jury they were the sole judges of the law of the case. Morgan v. Rice, 35 Mo.App. 598. Tenth. The answer containing a general denial, no evidence could properly be admitted under a plea of justification. Atterbury v. Powell, 29 Mo. 429; Coble v. McDaniel, 33 Mo. 363.
W. K. Amick for respondents.
(1) There was no error on the part of the court in allowing defendants to introduce testimony tending to show that a great many persons from different parts of Platte and Buchanan counties came to defendant's place of business and asked if Geo. R. Arnold was selling twine for defendant, and stated that they had heard he (Arnold) was selling twine for them (defendants). This testimony was admitted for the purpose of showing the extent of the circulation of the representations the plaintiff had made regarding his selling twine for Geo. L. Jewett & Company, and not for the purpose of proving such representations. It was also admitted for the purpose of determining whether or not defendants were actuated by malice in sending out the circular letters. (2) The evidence regarding rumors existing in different parts of Buchanan and Platte counties, to the effect that plaintiff Arnold was selling twine for defendants, was admitted for the same reasons and on the same grounds as first above stated. (3) The instruction asked by plaintiff at the close of the evidence, directing the jury to find for plaintiff, should have been refused. Defendants had introduced testimony tending to prove the truth of every statement contained in the circular letter sent out by defendants, and upon which the suit was based. (4) Instructions numbers 1 and 2, asked by plaintiff, telling the jury that the circular was libelous on its face, were properly refused. Under the constitution and bill of rights therein contained, the jury were the sole judges as to whether the circular was libelous or not. See art. 2, sec. 14, Constitution of Mo; State v. Armstrong, 106 Mo. 395. (5) Instructions numbered 6, 7 and 17, withdrawing all evidence of rumor, were properly refused. Defendants had introduced evidence tending to prove the truth of all the statements contained in the circular letter. The evidence of rumor was then competent to show that defendants were not actuated by malice in sending out the circular and also for the purpose of showing how far the false representations of plaintiff, that he was the agent and was selling twine for defendants, had extended; and that defendants only sent the circulars into those sections of the country where the rumor existed. (6) There was no error in giving instructions A and H. See Const. of Mo., art. 2, sec. 14; State v. Armstrong, 106 Mo. 395. (7) Instruction J should have been given. See cases cited under point 4, supra. (8) Defendants' instructions numbers 1 and 2 should have been given. See cases under points 4 and 6, supra. (9) Plaintiff can not complain of any error in admitting evidence under allegations in defendants' answer. The bill of exceptions contains an agreement between plaintiff and defendants that plaintiff on appeal would only raise two points: First, as to action of court in admitting evidence of rumor and hearsay; second, the action of the court in giving and refusing instructions.
This is an action for damages growing out of an alleged libel. The defendants as a firm were dealers in farm implements and binding twine, at St. Joseph, and plaintiff was engaged in the same line of business at Dearborn, in Platte county.
Plaintiff alleges that in April, 1891, he made a contract with the Farmers' Alliance of Platte county to sell them all the binding twine they would need during that season; that in June, 1891, defendants falsely published the following false, scurrilous and libelous circular, intending thereby to injure and damage plaintiff, to wit:
That in said letters or circulars the defendants referred to this plaintiff by the name and designation of "Mr. Arnold."
That contriving to injure and defame this plaintiff, defendants wantonly, willfully, wrongfully and maliciously published, and caused to be published, the said letters or circulars among the members of the organization and association aforesaid in said Buchanan county and among plaintiffs' patrons, acquaintances and friends, and among all the citizens of the counties of Buchanan, Platte and Clinton aforesaid.
Wherefore plaintiff says he is damaged in the premises in the sum of $ 15,000, for which, with costs, he prays judgment.
Defendants admitted they were partners as alleged; that for several years past and at the time of the alleged libel and at the time herein mentioned, plaintiff was engaged in the same line of business as defendant, and competing with defendants in the sale of farming machinery and binding twine in the counties of Buchanan, Platte and Clinton, in said state.
Defendants, further answering, say that on the day of January, 1891, they entered into contract with an organization or association of farmers and citizens of Buchanan county, Missouri, commonly known as the Farmers' Alliance or the Farmers and Laborers' Union of Buchanan county, Missouri, by and through its agents and officers and members, to furnish to said association or organization and each individual member thereof in said county all the farming machinery and binding twine they or any of them might wish to purchase during the year 1891.
That, on the day of January, 1891, the defendants entered into contract with a similar organization, known as the Farmers' Alliance or Farmers' and Laborers' Union of Platte county, Missouri, by and through its officers, agents and members, to furnish to said organization or association and each individual member thereof in said county all the farming machinery and binding twine they, or any of them, wish to purchase during the year 1891.
Defendants admit that they did, on or about the date mentioned in plaintiff's petition, cause to be printed several hundred circulars as in said plaintiff's petition alleged, that said circulars were mailed to the customers of defendants and to members of the Farmers' Alliance, or Farmers and Laborers' Union in said Buchanan and Platte counties, and that the supposed libelous and defamatory words set forth in the said circulars and in said petition of plaintiff, and every part thereof, are true of the plaintiff, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial