Casselman v. Winship

• Decision Date: 12 May 1884
• Citation: 3 Dak. 292,19 N.W. 412
• Parties: Casselman v. Winship.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

19 N.W. 412

3 Dak. 292

Casselman

v.Winship.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Dakota.

Filed May 12, 1884.

Appeal from district court, Grand Forks county.E. St. Julien Cox, for appellant. Cyrus Wellington and Bosard & Clifford, for respondent.

HUDSON, J.

This action was brought against the defendant, who was the publisher and proprietor of the daily Herald, a newspaper published in the city of Grand Forks, for libel in the publication of the following article:

“Alleged Crookedness.

Legal circles were somewhat agitated yesterday over the fact that Charles White, a settler whose claim was contested, charges I. P. Casselman, the attorney who contests the claim in person, had made false affidavits in order to commence his case. He also asserts that the affidavit made by Casselman was false. Charles Morgan, a brother of Howard Morgan, has a similar story to tell, and prefers like charges. Of course, these charges are by no means proven, and Mr. Casselman's affidavit stands against the unsupported word of the others. It is to be investigated, and in case the charges are found true, the legal gentleman will be debarred from practice in the United States land courts.”

The complaint alleges that plaintiff was, and for a long time has been, an attorney, and as such, and in consequence of the publication of those false and defamatory words, has been and is greatly damaged, injured, and prejudiced in his name, character, and reputation, and has lost and been deprived of great gains and profits in his calling, following, and occupation, which would have otherwise arisen and accrued to him in his business, calling, and profession, to his damage, etc. The defendant, by his counsel, demurred to this complaint, alleging as grounds of demurrer that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that the publication in the said complaint alleged to have been made by the defendant was not a libel. The court sustained the demurrer, and from the judgment entered upon the order sustaining the demurrer the plaintiff appeals to this court.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff, by a colloquium and by innuendo, alleges that the intention of the defendant was to charge the plaintiff with having been guilty of the crime of perjury, in making false affidavits before the United States land-office, in the contesting of claims before the same. A direct charge of perjury is actionable per se, and “if such a direct charge had been...