Brown v. Boynton

• Decision Date: 12 December 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 1099,122 Mich. 251
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BROWN v. BOYNTON

80 N.W. 1099

122 Mich. 251

BROWN v. BOYNTON

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 12, 1899

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; George S. Hosmer, Judge.

Action by Samuel J. Brown against Nathan S. Boynton. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the petition, and judgment entered thereon, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

This was an action of libel for publishing the following letter in a newspaper called the 'Michigan Maccabee': 'A Letter from Albert Gladman. Detroit, May 30, 1897. Editor of the Michigan Maccabee: I notice in the Michigan Maccabee, May 20, an article copied from a Detroit paper called 'This Week,' dated May 1. I will state the facts of the case just as they are. 'This Week,' the Detroit paper will retract its former statement, and publish the facts in the case from my side. The distress and misfortune part is too true, also the raffle came off as planned. But the raffle scheme was gotten up by Sir Knight Brown, against my wishes and was done when I was home with my sick family, and did not know it till after Brown had appointed his own committee and had the tickets printed. Grand River Tent, No. 409, the tent to which I have belonged to for nearly four years, voted against the scheme, for which I am very thankful. Grand River Tent, 409, helped me and my family out kindly and nobly, and carried my assessment No. 70, and voted and loaned me money and the tent sympathizes with me and mine. Now, the lot is not a city lot, but a lot away out in Romulus. The raffle came off, but This Week states that I am in possession once more of home, which is not correct. I have not received one cent from the raffle, and the mortgage is in the hands of the collector to foreclose, and take my home from me. The man who holds the mortgage told Brown and Henderson to settle, or not bother him any more, and they told him that they had got no money. I wish, in justice to Grand River Tent, myself and family, that you would kindly state these facts about this scheme, so that the tents and sir knights who bought tickets will get their money back. Yours, fracternally, Albert Gladman, Grand River Tent, 409.' The declaration contains two counts, but the innuendo to the second count is a sufficient statement for plaintiff's claim, and is as follows: 'Thereby meaning and intending to charge that the plaintiff had, without the knowledge or consent of said Albert Gladman, got up a raffle and sold tickets and obtained money for the alleged benefit of said Albert Gladman, and that the said Albert Gladman did not receive one cent of said money, and that the plaintiff and Henderson had obtained money as the proceeds of said raffle by false pretenses and representations, and embezzled said money; thereby imputing to the plaintiff the commission of the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses and representations, and also the crime of embezzlement, and charging and imputing to the plaintiff falsehood, deceit, fraud, and misconduct as a member of said Grand River Tent, 409, and obtaining money of members of said tent and other kindred tents, and of the individual members of said tent and other kindred tents, by falsehood, deceit, and fraud, and by false pretenses and representations, and with having misappropriated said money.' To this declaration defendant interposed a demurrer for the following reasons: '(1) Said declaration nowhere states that the article mentioned therein as having been published in This Week was true, or that the matter contained in the article published in that paper and the statements made therein were correct. (2) The construction put upon the article published in the Michigan Maccabee by said plaintiff is neither a legal nor a natural construction. (3) The language contained in the article charged in said declaration to have been published in the Michigan Maccabee does not bear out the construction put upon it by said plaintiff in said declaration. (4) The article alleged in said declaration to have been published in the Michigan Maccabee is not libelous, and it does not bear the construction put upon it by said plaintiff in his innuendoes in said declaration. (5) Neither court in said declaration stated a legal cause of action against said defendant, Nathan S. Boynton.' The demurrer was sustained.

Hooker and Montgomery, JJ., dissenting.

Lehman Bros. & Stivers, for appellant.

Durand & Carton, for appellee.

GRANT C.J. (after stating the facts).

A libel is a malicious publication, tending to expose a person to contempt, ridicule, hatred, or degradation of character. Barr v. Moore, 87 Pa. St. 390, and authorities cited. 'Words must be given their plain and natural import, according to the ideas they are calculated to convey to those to whom they are addressed.' 13 Am. &amp Eng. Enc. Law, p. 378. Or, as Lord Ellenborough stated in Roberts v. Camden, 9 East, 95, 'words are now construed by courts, as they always ought to have been, in the plain and popular sense in which the rest of the world naturally understood...