Clifford v. John C. Cochrane.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1882
• Citation: 10 Ill.App. 570,10 Bradw. 570
• Parties: JOHN CLIFFORDv.JOHN C. COCHRANE.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

10 Ill.App. 570

10 Bradw. 570

JOHN CLIFFORD

v.JOHN C. COCHRANE.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

March Term, 1882.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. ELLIOTT ANTHONY, of the Superior Court, sitting as Circuit Judge, presiding. Opinion filed April 10, 1882.

This was an action for libel, brought by appellant against appellee, based on the publication of an article in the Chicago Times newspaper, and which was subsequently republished in the San Francisco Chronicle. The declaration sets forth, in substance, that the plaintiff was an architect by profession; that he was employed by the city hall commissioners of San Francisco, to superintend the construction of the new city hall building in that city; that he gave the required bond, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as architect of the building. It then alleges the formation of a conspiracy, by a ring composed of divers persons in San Francisco, including the proprietors of the San Francisco Chronicle, to force the plaintiff to resign, so that they might elect one of their own number, and thus get control of the expenditure of the moneys, etc.; that to that end they procured certain false “opinions” so-called, of other architects, and among others the opinion of the defendant, Cochrane, to the effect that the plaintiff was crazy and wholly incompetent to discharge the duties of an architect, and that his appointment would be a public calamity, etc. That the opinion of the defendant was in the form of a conversation or interview between a reporter of the Chicago Times, and the defendant, the latter knowing at the time of making them that his statements were to be published in that paper. The declaration alleges that the statements were published in the Times, and a few days subsequently appeared in the Chronicle.

The interview, as reported in the Times, was as follows:

Reporter: “Mr. Cochrane, with your permission I should like to ask you a few questions. Do you know an architect by the name of John Clifford?”

Cochrane: “Well, I did know an architect by the name of John Clifford some years ago, but he has not been a resident here for several years. I wonder what has become of the poor fellow.”

Reporter: “I can enlighten you. He is in California. What is your opinion of him both as an individual and an architect?”

Cochrane: “Well, as an individual, if you want me to speak frankly, I think he is crazy.”

Reporter: “What would you say if he had been appointed architect of our city hall?”

Cochrane: “I could scarcely conceive of such a thing happening; but had it happened I should regard it in the light of a public calamity. But, excuse my curiosity, why do you ask these questions?”

Reporter: “Because Mr. Clifford has been appointed architect of the San Francisco city hall--”

Cochrane: “What, you are joking! Why the thing is impossible.”

Reporter: “Nothing is impossible under an inscrutable Providence. I am afraid you are weak in the faith. Let me reassure you. Not only has this come to pass, but more remarkable still, in view of what you have just said, he refers to you as one who can vouch for his qualifications to creditably fill the position.”

Cochrane: “You don't say so! He refers to me, does he? Well, well, to be sure, this is a somewhat delicate matter; but I have nothing to take back. I again say that I can not regard his appointment in any other light than a public calamity.”

The declaration contains the usual colloquium and innuendoes, alleging the words to have been spoken of the plaintiff as an architect, and avers that in consequence of the republication of the article in the San Francisco Chronicle, his bondsmen withdrew as sureties on his bond, and being unable to procure others, he was forced to, and did, resign his position as architect of the building in question.

The declaration also avers that by reason of the committing of the several grievances complained of, the plaintiff has been injured in his good name and in his reputation as an architect, and has been deprived of great gains and profits, which would otherwise have accrued to him; and that he suffered special damage by being forced to give up his position as architect of the new city hall building, whereby he was deprived of large profits, etc. Damages laid at $50,000.

To the declaration the defendant filed a general demurrer, which was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff standing by his declaration, judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to this court, and assigns for error the sustaining of the demurrer to the declaration.

Mr. W. T. BUTLER and Mr. ROBERT HERVEY, for plaintiff in error; that the words are actionable per se, cited Townshend on Libel and Slander, 75; 2 Addison on Torts, 308; Homer v. Stanford, 4 Sneed, 520; Southwick v. Stevens, 10 Johns. 443.Messrs. ROBERTS & HUTCHINSON, for defendant in error; that defendant can not be held liable for damages sustained by reason of a republication of the libel, cited Townshend on Libel and Slander, 155; Vickars v. Wilcocks, 8 East, 1; Odgers on Libel and Slander, 321.WILSON, P. J.

It is first insisted by the learned counsel for appellee, that the plaintiff's declaration consists of two counts instead of one, and that as such, neither count shows a cause of action. After a careful examination of the allegations and averments of the declaration, we fail to perceive any foundation for the construction claimed. The declaration is very voluminous, and consists largely of recitals by way of inducement to the subsequent allegations as to the uttering and publishing of the words, and the resulting damages. It recites the appointment of the plaintiff as architect of the new city hall building, in San Francisco; the formation of a conspiracy to force him to resign; the means resorted to through the publication of false “opinions” so called, as to his competency as an architect, one of which consists of the statements of the defendant to a reporter of the Chicago Times. It alleges the publication of those statements in the Times, the defendant knowing at the time of making them they were to be published in that paper; alleges the republication of the article in the San Francisco Chronicle, and the consequent loss of his position as architect of the new city hall, and concludes by averring both general and special damages. The declaration is obviously framed as a single count, and by no rule of construction is it divisible into two.

Were the words as set out in the declaration actionable without proof of special damages? That they are so, we entertain no doubt. It is a familiar principle that words not actionable in themselves may become so if spoken of one engaged in a particular calling or...