Chaloner v. Washington Post Co.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 4182.,4182.
• Citation: 6 F.2d 712
• Parties: CHALONER v. WASHINGTON POST CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

6 F.2d 712 (1925)

CHALONER v. WASHINGTON POST CO.

No. 4182.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted May 4, 1925.

Decided June 1, 1925.

E. F. Colladay, H. S. Barger, and C. C. Cooper, Jr., all of Washington, D. C., and T. J. Randolph, of Charlottesville, Va., for appellant.

W. J. Lambert, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, rendered on a verdict in the sum of one cent damages, in an action for libel in which appellant, Chaloner, sued the Washington Post, for the publication of an article in which it was stated that plaintiff shot and killed one John Gillard, while the latter was abusing his wife, who had taken refuge in Chaloner's house, "Merrie Mills," near Cobham, Va.

This case has been before this court on two former occasions. Chaloner v. Washington Post Co., 36 App. D. C. 232; Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner, 47 App. D. C. 66. The facts are fully reviewed in the opinions on the former appeals. The article complained of was published on April 3, 1909. A previous article had appeared in the Post relating to the same matter on March 17, 1909. This article was admitted in evidence on the former trial, and was held inadmissible by this court.

When reference was made to the article of March 17th, during the present trial, the court announced: "I am not going to let that article in." On redirect examination the witness Marks, business manager of the Washington Post, testified "that he had read the article of March 17th; that in publishing that article the Post did not in any way intend to charge Mr. Chaloner with having feloniously killed John Gillard, or having murdered him, or anything of that kind" — to which question and answer counsel for plaintiff objected. The court overruled the objection, and an exception was noted. We think the mere expression of opinion by the witness of the probable intention of the Post in publishing this article does not constitute prejudicial error. No attempt was made to place the contents of the article before the jury, and there was no evidence offered from which the jury could draw any inference as to the nature of the article. The purport of the article was not suggested by the testimony of Marks. His testimony related merely to his impression of the intention of the paper in publishing the article. In view of the statement of the...