Brandt v. Story

• Decision Date: 23 October 1913
• Citation: 161 Iowa 451,143 N.W. 545
• Parties: BRANDT v. STORY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

161 Iowa 451

143 N.W. 545

BRANDT

v.STORY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 23, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Monroe County; Frank W. Eichelberger, Judge.

Action to recover damages for slander. Reversed.

Jno. F. Abegglen, of Albia, for appellant.

George H. Woodson, of Buxton, for appellee.

GAYNOR, J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages of the defendant on account of certain slanderous words alleged to have been spoken by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff. After the preliminary statements in his petition, he alleges as a basis of recovery as follows: That on or about the 4th of July, 1911, the defendant, for the express purpose of injuring the plaintiff and defaming his good name, character, and reputation, and for the express purpose of bringing reproach upon his good name and reputation and depriving him of the confidence, friendship, and esteem of his associates, and especially his fellow workmen engaged in the same camp of Buxton, Monroe county, Iowa, uttered of and concerning the plaintiff the following false, malicious, and defamatory words, to wit: “Simon Brandt is a thief; that he has been stealing coal of me (the defendant) and of others; that he has paid the driver to help him steal coal; that he has put his own check on the cars of coal mined by others of the boys and has gotten credit for many cars of coal not mined by him, and that he has stolen as many as 15 and 20 cars each two weeks, and that is the reason he makes so much more than I (the defendant) and the other boys; that I told the pit committee that he has been stealing coal from me and the other boys; that the local union ought to do something with him.” Or, if the precise words were not used, the defendant used words and language in substance the same as that above set forth. That said language was uttered at the premises of the plaintiff in Buxton, Iowa, in the presence and hearing of one Fred Kulling; both said defendant and the said Fred Kulling at the time being boarders of the plaintiff. That said language so uttered by the defendant was false and untrue in every particular, and said false and slanderous language was made for the express purpose of injuring the good name, character, and reputation of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been injured and damaged thereby in a large sum. The plaintiff further alleges that on the 15th day of July of the same year the defendant made use of substantially the same language of and concerning the plaintiff in the presence of one Traussnik and others.

The defendant, for answer to the plaintiff's petition and claim, denied that he made the statements alleged to have been made by him of and concerning the plaintiff, and further answering says that he has not done any act or deed or uttered any words concerning the plaintiff for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff's reputation and character, or with the intention of bringing reproach upon his name or reputation, or depriving him of any confidence, friendship, and esteem with the community or with his associates. The defendant, further answering, by way of amendment says that all he did or said was for the sole purpose of protecting his interests and the interest and the welfare of his fellow workmen, who were and are mine workers with the defendant and members of the same voluntary association, and says that he never meant to call the defendant a thief; never did or said anything through malice or with a view of injuring the plaintiff; and defendant further says and states that, by the actions and deeds of the plaintiff and the facts surrounding the case, he was fully justified in all he did and said, and the defendant pleads the truth of the facts and circumstances of the case as a defense and pleads full justification in defense of all his actions.

Upon the issues thus tendered, the cause was tried to a jury and verdict returned for the defendant. Judgment having been entered upon the verdict, the plaintiff appeals.

It appears from the evidence that the defendant and plaintiff were miners and at the time of the speaking of the words complained of were working in the same mine; that the defendant boarded with the plaintiff; that on the 4th day of July, 1911, after they came out of the mine, the defendant had a conversation with one Fred Kulling, and Kulling testifies that the defendant said to him that the plaintiff was giving the driver his (Brandt's) checks to put on cars; that the plaintiff was getting more cars extra; that he was stealing the cars and checking the cars; that he was getting cars checked that did not belong to him; that he was getting cars checked in the mine for coal that he did not dig.

Mrs. Brandt, wife of the plaintiff, testified: “I was working in the cellar. Story came out of the house and spoke to me. He took out his pocketbook and paid his board. Said that he would not stay longer; that her husband, the plaintiff, is too dirty for him; that he didn't want to see him no more. I asked him what was the matter. He said, ‘Simon (meaning the plaintiff) is too dirty for me. He steals coal in the mine and he checks the cars.’ He so mad, I don't know. I am scared of him, and I says, ‘My, he speak like that to me;’ and he says, ‘I know that for a long time;’ and I says, ‘Why if you know that for so long time, what for you don't tell me before?’ He says. ‘I called the pit committee to-day.’ He says if he steal the coal and he check the cars (plaintiff's cars). My husband was in the house at the time. I told Story to wait a minute until I go in the house and I call my husband. Story want to go away and did leave soon afterwards. I told him I do not believe he steal the coal. I didn't believe it when John Story told me so.”

The plaintiff, being called as a witness, testified that he and Story had been working in the same mine prior to this Saturday; that when his wife called him out of the house, as testified to by her, Story was there, “and my wife said to me, in the presence of Story, ‘You know what John Story said about you.’ I said, ‘What?’ My wife says, ‘You been thief. You stealing coal in the mine.’ My wife was awful nervous. I says, ‘What, stealing coal in the mine?’ My wife says, ‘Yes, sir.’ After that Story went away.”

Over the objection of the plaintiff, the court allowed the defendant to detail conversations had with other persons, not in the presence of the plaintiff, touching the conduct of the plaintiff in respect to the matter charged against him, and permitted the defendant to testify as follows: “I was sitting in a car some time before this and some one came to me and said: ‘I have been in your room. I looked for you. I want checks from you.’ I said; ‘You want checks from me. What for you want checks?’ The party responded, ‘I thought you were Simon Brandt.’ ” Defendant testified further: “Tom Roman told me that he had lots of bother with cars, for to watch the cars on my entry and I would find out what the trouble was with the cars.”

The following question was asked of Romans, a witness for the defendant, and answered over the objection of the plaintiff: ...