Bidwell v. Rademacher

Decision Date20 November 1894
Docket Number1,286
Citation38 N.E. 879,11 Ind.App. 218
PartiesBIDWELL v. RADEMACHER
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

From the Allen Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

S. N Chambers, S. O. Pickens and C. W. Moores, for appellant.

J Morris, R. C. Bell, J. M. Barrett and S. L. Morris, for appellee.

OPINION

REINHARD, J.

The appellee sued the appellant for libel, and recovered a judgment against him. The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and this ruling is the only error assigned.

The complaint, by way of inducement, states that appellee, as the bishop of the Roman Catholic Church for the diocese of Fort Wayne, was, and had been for a long time prior to the 12th day of January, 1894, the owner in fee-simple of a certain orphans' home or asylum, located near Fort Wayne, Indiana, which was used for the instruction, care, protection and well being, physically, morally and religiously, of the poor and destitute orphan children of the Catholic Church, and such other destitute children as might solicit a home and protection therein; that as such owner of said asylum, and as such bishop of said diocese, he had for a long time, and still has the supervision, management and control of said asylum; that as such bishop it was his duty to select and appoint a priest to officiate in, and instruct morally and religiously the inmates of said asylum, and to see to it that he was pure and virtuous, and that he would observe as such, in connection with said asylum, all the laws of decency, decorum and virtue; that it was the duty of the appellee, as such bishop and superintendent of said asylum to appoint one of the sisters of said church, of known purity of character, exalted piety, experience and capacity, to properly watch over, instruct and protect the inmates of said asylum in the ways of honesty, morality and virtue, which appointees it was, and is the duty of the appellee, as such bishop and superintendent, to remove if in any way unfaithful or negligent in the discharge of their respective duties; that the appellee is, in fact, as such bishop and superintendent, responsible for the actions and conduct of all the subordinate employes in and about said asylum; that if any of such employes fail or neglect to discharge his or her duty, it becomes his duty to remove said delinquent.

The complaint then alleges that the appellant is the proprietor of a certain newspaper--stating its name and where published. It then avers that, with the view, and for the purpose of exposing the appellee, personally, and as such bishop and superintendent of said asylum, to the ridicule, hatred and ill-will of all good people in Fort Wayne and vicinity, and to destroy the high standing and usefulness of said asylum, and to injure all persons concerned in or connected with its management and government, the appellant did, on the day, etc., unlawfully and maliciously print, publish and circulate in said paper, of and concerning the appellee, as such bishop and superintendent of said asylum, and of and concerning said asylum, and of and concerning all who were connected with the government and management thereof, and to cause it to believed in said city and its vicinity, that the appellee, as such bishop and superintendent, had, in violation of his duty as such, appointed an unfit, unchaste, libidinous and impious priest to look after, protect and have charge of the young and inexperienced females of said asylum, and that he appointed cruel, incompetent, immoral and unchaste females to co-operate with such unchaste and incompetent priest, in debauching such female inmates of said asylum, the following false, malicious and libelous article, in the words following, that is to say: Here the article is set out in full. Then follows the conclusion.

The alleged libelous article is as follows:

"DUNGEONS. OUR ROMAN CATHOLIC ORPHANS' ASYLUM CONTAINS THEM. STARTLING REVELATIONS OF A YOUNG LADY. INCARCERATED BY A PRIEST FOR NON COMPLIANCE.

"Much has been said concerning dungeons and those who have occupied them, because of disobeying the Jesuit or refusing him certain liberties, but the skeptical have doubted while the Romish clergy denied it. We beg permission to relate a story which occurred not long since in Fort Wayne. As nearly every one is aware, there is a Roman Catholic orphans' home on the northern boundary of our city. A young man living in that vicinity relates that as he passed daily to his employment he had observed a young lady, aged about seventeen years, at an upper window. For some time he saw nothing in that to excite his curiosity, and consequently gave it little consideration. As time passed their familiarity became closer and they spoke to each other. At no time, however, did the young man entertain the intention, or even desire, to approach closer than the walk he trod to and fro to work and home. The young lady beckoned him, finally, to advance to the home, but he realized he had no business on private property and refused. The beckoning became so earnest, however, that the young gentleman decided to ascertain the cause. He ventured to the building and was surprised to know that it was the desire of the young girl to quit the place. She was asked if she was not kindly treated and answered most emphatically, No! She volunteered the information that she had been shut in the dungeon for a week and was compelled to subsist on bread and water. Why?

"Now comes the answer that should arouse the furious indignation of every person who upholds decency or even modesty. This young woman, probably an orphan, for aught she knows to the contrary, bound by law to the Roman Catholic church, where she is supposed to be taught morals at least, if not religion, declared that a priest made a lewd proposition to her, and, because she spurned it, was placed in a dungeon. Behold a Roman Catholic priest, who poses in the light of the nineteenth century as a man of God, attempting to lead astray a mere child, and that in a house of worship, as they call it, because it is exempt from taxation.

"The American Eagle is fearless in saying it can produce the name of the young lady and the young gentleman in question. For their sake they are withheld. Now, you doubting Thomases and you who uphold this shameful proceeding by declaring there is but one church, trump up some other excuse for your...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT