Brown v. Guy Gannett Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 August 1951
• Citation: 147 Me. 3,82 A.2d 797
• Parties: BROWN v. GUY GANNETT PUB. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 797

82 A.2d 797

147 Me. 3

BROWN v. GUY GANNETT PUB. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 3, 1951.

Goodspeed & Goodspeed, Augusta, for plaintiff.

Locke, Campbell, Reid & Hebert, Augusta, for defendant.

Before MURCHIE, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, MERRILL and WILLIAMSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On exceptions. This was an action for libel of the plaintiff by the publication of an article in 'Portland Sunday Telegram and Sunday Press Herald', a newspaper owned and published by the defendant company.

The declaration contained two counts. In the first count it was alleged that the defendant:--'with intent to bring the plaintiff into hatred, contempt and ridicule, to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse, and to injure him in his business, did maliciously, wilfully, recklessly and falsely write, compose, print, publish, circulate, and sell in said newspaper the following false, scandalous and defamatory article of and concerning the plaintiff, entitled 'Back Door Politics', said article being in the words following, to wit:'. (Here followed the alleged libelous article set out with innuendoes.) Said count further alleged:--'And the plaintiff avers that by the writing, printing, publishing, circulating and selling the above false, malicious, defamatory and scandalous article as aforesaid, the defendant has greatly injured the plaintiff in his good name and reputation, has deprived him of public confidence, and exposed him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, and plaintiff has suffered great pain and distress of body and mind, has been shunned by many of his former acquaintances, has been injured in his business and ability to sell insurance, and has otherwise been greatly injured and prejudiced;'.

In a second count, which also contained the above allegations of intent and publication, after setting forth the alleged libelous article with innuendoes and alleging that the conduct charged therein amounted to a criminal offense as a violation of Sec. 36 of Chap. 4 of the Revised Statutes of Maine of 1944, the plaintiff continued:--'and the plaintiff further says that by the writing, printing and circulation of said false, malicious, and defamatory article as aforesaid, the defendant has greatly injured and prejudiced the plaintiff in his own good name, character and reputation, and the plaintiff has been rendered liable to criminal prosecution for the above described crime, has suffered great pain and distress in body and mind, and has been held up to public scorn and ridicule, has been shunned by many of his former associates and acquaintances, has been embarrassed by whisperings and conversations in law tones wherever he went and has been ostracized from the society of many of his former associates and otherwise has been greatly injured and prejudiced;'.

To this declaration the defendant filed a general demurrer. To the overruling of this demurrer the defendant alleged exceptions which were allowed, and it is upon these exceptions that the case is now before this Court.

By its demurrer the defendant has admitted the truth of each and every one of the foregoing allegations.

In the very recent case of Briola v. J. B. Bass Pub. Co., 138 Me. 344, at page 346, 25 A.2d 489, at page 490, this Court said:--'It is too well settled to require extended citation of authority that there is a distinction in the requirements necessary to maintain an action of libel and in those essential in an action of slander. A charge which is published in writing is regarded as carrying more weight than one which is made verbally. It is accordingly not necessary in a case of libel that the charge import a crime, nor is it essential that special damage be alleged. The question is, do the printed words, if believed, 'naturally tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse?' Tillson v. Robbins, 68 Me. 295, 301, 28 Am.Rep. 50.'

It is not necessary in order for printed words to be libelous that they naturally tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred and contempt and ridicule, and deprive him of the benefit of public confidence and social intercourse. It is sufficient if they naturally tend to bring about any one of the foregoing...