Bourreseau v. Detroit Evening Journal

• Decision Date: 04 November 1886
• Citation: 30 N.W. 376,63 Mich. 425
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BOURRESEAU v. DETROIT EVENING JOURNAL.

30 N.W. 376

63 Mich. 425

BOURRESEAU v. DETROIT EVENING JOURNAL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 4, 1886

Error to superior court, Detroit.

Action for libel. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

Stewart & Galloway, for plaintiff.

John A Bell, for defendant and appellant.

MORSE J.

This is an action for libel. The article complained of was published in the Detroit Evening Journal in its issue of July 29, 1885. The whole of it is set out in the declaration, and is reproduced here, including the innuendoes inserted by the pleader:

"UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE.

"Danger of Walking Alone in Ecorse and Springwells--Michael Murphy's Experience--A Poor Man Nearly Reaches Friends, when He is Arrested and Imprisoned.

"Instances of the outrage practiced upon reputable people who may unfortunately pass through the township of Ecorse, by the justices and constables, keep coming to notice. Michael Murphy, who is employed upon a farm about a half a mile from the village, upon the river road, was in the city this morning, and relates an event in which he took part. 'One day last June,' said Murphey, 'an old man came along the road, and I fell into conversation with him. He said he came from the southern part of the state, and was going to Detroit, where he had relatives who would care for him. I invited him into the house, and gave him some dinner. In the afternoon the old man started out for Detroit. I had seen George Allen, a constable, who lives on Sand hill, watching the old man when he came to the house, so I kept an eye on him when he went up the road. The old man hadn't gone far when Allen started after him. I saw his game at once, and started towards them, but Allen got there first, and arrested the old man for being a tramp. We had a hot dispute, but, of course, Allen rushed his man off. The next day Allen took the man before Justice HALTIMER, and he was sent up. That's the way these fellows get their fees, and it's an outrage. It's been going on for a long time.' James Kelly, a farm laborer, who works near Mr. Murphy, was with him, and said these occurrences were common. 'Just a little while ago,' he said, 'I was going to Ecorse, walking along the railroad. I had a bag on my arm, and guess I looked a little like a tramp. Allen came along, and stopped me, and asked me a number of questions. He concluded not to arrest me after that, but that was what he intended to do. The other day a man was walking along in front of the house, and Deputy-sheriff Bourreseau, [said plaintiff meaning,] who keeps a saloon in Ecorse, came along in his [said plaintiff's] buggy. He [said plaintiff meaning] asked the man if he didn't want to ride. The man got into the buggy, and rode towards the village. He saw something was wrong, and started to get out, when Bourreseau [said plaintiff meaning] tried to prevent him. The man, however, jumped out, and pulled a jack-knife, when Bourreseau [said plaintiff meaning] grabbed him. "Let go of me, or I'll stick this into you," yelled the man at Bourreseau, [said plaintiff meaning,] who released his hold. He called to some farm hands, who came and helped him put the shackles on the man. I don't know what became of him, but I suppose he was sent up. It isn't safe for an honest man, if he's a little ragged, or hasn't any money, to walk around Ecorse. These fellows hang around the highways, and arrest every one of them.' "

Under the general issue, the defendant gave notice that it would insist, in defense, (1) that the article was privileged, the matters therein mentioned being of great public concern, relating to alleged abuses practiced by public officials; that before the publication of the article the doings of some of the officials of the township of Ecorse, and elsewhere in Wayne county, in the making of alleged causeless, unwarranted arrests, and in other alleged abuses of authority, were matters of public comment and discussion; that the defendant, as a public journal, in pursuance of its duty, felt compelled to lay before the public generally the statements gathered by its reporters, in respect of such alleged causeless and unwarranted arrests, and other alleged abuses of authority, to the end that proper remedial measures might and would be adopted; that the article was published in good faith, without malice, and with an honest desire to do the community a service. (2) That the statements contained in said publication of and concerning said plaintiff were true.

Upon the issue thus made a trial was had in the superior court of Detroit, resulting in verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $300. The defendant brings error.

The plaintiff made his primary case by introducing the article complained of, the publication of which was admitted, and showing the circulation of the newspaper. He also testified in his own behalf that he lived at Ecorse, and had held the position of deputy-sheriff since the first of January in that year, and that there was no other deputy-sheriff in Ecorse by the name of Bourreseau. That he had seen the article in the Evening Journal, and that there was no truth in it. He then rested.

Defendant's counsel then moved the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that there was no proper innuendo or inducement set forth in the declaration, and nothing for defendant to try, and on the further ground that the article was privileged. The motion was denied, as were also requests to charge in the same direction at the close of the evidence.

The attorney for defendant, in a very able and interesting argument in this court, showing much research and study, earnestly contends that the article complained of is not libelous per se as respects the plaintiff; and therefore the declaration, lacking the necessary innuendo to bring out the latent injurious meaning, does not state a cause of action; and that, in order to set forth an actionable libel, there should have been an innuendo distinctly averring that the words, and pointing out the particular words, contained in the publication, bore a specific actionable meaning. The office of an innuendo is to aver the meaning of the language published. If the meaning of the publication is plain, therefore, no innuendo is needed. The use of it can never change the import of the words, nor add to nor enlarge their sense. "An innuendo helps nothing, unless the words to which it is applied have a violent presumption of the innuendo." Castleman v. Hobbs, Cro.Eliz. 428. If the common understanding of man takes hold of the published words, and at once applies, without difficulty or doubt, a libelous meaning thereto, an innuendo is not needed, and would be but useless surplusage in pleading.

The import and meaning of this article in question seems clear to me. In the language of the learned judge (Hon. J. LOGAN CHIPMAN) who presided at the trial below: "Taking the head-lines; the introduction to the example; the instance in which the name of Bourreseau himself is mentioned; the account which follows immediately after it,--all of these render the article sufficiently plain. All of these, if the facts stated therein are true, would tend to subject Bourreseau to the highest censure, and when an article does that it is libelous." The head-lines speak of unwarranted outrages against poor men, and the danger of walking alone in Ecorse. Then, in the body of the publication, instances are given of outrages practiced upon reputable people who pass through Ecorse by the justices and constables therein, and the article proceeds thereafter to state that the plaintiff enticed a man to get into his buggy to ride. The man, after riding some distance, saw something wrong, and tried to get out. Bourreseau attempted to keep him in the buggy. After a struggle, Bourreseau calls some farm hands, and, with their help, shackles the poor fellow, and presumably he is sent up; immediately adding to this description of plaintiff's conduct these words: "It isn't safe for an honest man, if he is a little ragged, or hasn't any money, to walk around Ecorse. These fellows hang around the highways, and arrest every one of them."

Here is a distinct and plain charge, in substance, of official oppression, and unwarranted abuse of poor men by the officers of the law. Special instances of such abuse by other officers are given; then a special instance of abuse by the plaintiff; and then, again, the general allegation as to the treatment of ragged and poor men by these "fellows," which term "fellows" necessarily and manifestly includes the plaintiff, without the aid of any innuendo. The average reader knew what the article meant, and what charge of misconduct was imputed therein to plaintiff, and the services of a special pleader were not needed to explain its meaning to the average citizen out of court; nor was it necessary to inform the court or jury, at the trial, what the publication was about, or its import in regard to the action of the plaintiff as an officer in the township of Ecorse. The office of pleading is to make clear and certain the matters set forth and complained of; and when a publication, claimed to be libelous, has a clear and certain meaning upon its face, there can be no better pleading than to set out the article in terms, and in full, when all of it is pertinent to the issue; and the addition of an innuendo, when none is necessary, can add nothing to a clear perception of its meaning, but tends rather to cumber and obscure it.

The publication is plainly libelous. It charges the plaintiff with gross misconduct in office; with arresting and handcuffing men without right; and oppressing the poor and friendless under color of his office of deputy-sheriff,--offenses against humanity and decency which,...