Bidwell v. Rademacher
Decision Date | 20 November 1894 |
Docket Number | 1,286 |
Citation | 38 N.E. 879,11 Ind.App. 218 |
Parties | BIDWELL v. RADEMACHER |
Court | Indiana 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.
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial