Commonwealth v. Damon
Decision Date | 29 February 1884 |
Citation | 136 Mass. 441 |
Parties | Commonwealth v. Robin Damon |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Essex. Indictment, alleging that the defendant, on May 18, 1883, at Salem, "contriving and unlawfully and maliciously intending to injure, vilify, and prejudice one John W. Hart, and to deprive him of his good name, fame, credit, and reputation, and to bring him, the said Hart, into great contempt, scandal, infamy, and disgrace," "unlawfully did compose, write, print, and publish, and cause and procure to be composed, written, printed, and published in a certain newspaper then and there published by said Damon and called the Salem Evening News, a false, scandalous, and defamatory libel, in the form of a letter purporting to have been written to the editor of said newspaper by one Nicholas J. Dean, and then and there printed and published in said newspaper by the said Damon as aforesaid, the said false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel then and there containing divers false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory matters and things of and concerning said John W. Hart, and of and concerning the acts of said John W. Hart in his official capacity as city marshal of said city of Salem, the said Hart being then and there and having theretofore and for a long time been the city marshal of said city of Salem, which said false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel is according to the tenor following, that is to say:
the said Robin Damon then and there well knowing the said defamatory libel to be false; to the great damage, scandal, and disgrace of the said John W. Hart, and against the peace of the Commonwealth aforesaid, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."
In the Superior Court, before the jury were empanelled, the defendant moved to quash the indictment, for the following reasons:
Mason, J., overruled the motion; and the defendant excepted.
At the trial, it appeared in evidence that the defendant was the publisher of the newspaper referred to; and that the article, which is correctly set forth in the indictment, was published in the edition of May 18, 1883.
The defendant offered evidence to prove the truth of the allegations of the alleged libel; but denied that the interrogations therein were allegations.
The government offered in evidence articles published in said newspaper under the dates of May 23, May 29, July 14, July 27, August 1, September 12, and September 17, 1883, for the purpose of showing malice. The defendant objected to their admission; but the judge admitted them for the purpose for which they were offered. A copy of these articles was annexed to the bill of exceptions. The nature of them sufficiently appears in the opinion. No issue was made as to the truth or falsity of these articles.
The defendant offered himself as a witness; and, on cross-examination, was questioned as to a conversation he had with Hart at a time prior to said May 18, and in this connection was asked the following question: "Did your paper from that time on have articles in it that were unfriendly to Mr. Hart?" The answer was, "When the editor thought proper to criticise, he did so, and there were such criticisms." The defendant objected to this question and answer; but they were admitted.
The following questions were also asked in the same connection: "Did your paper pursue an unfriendly tone towards Mr. Hart?" to which the defendant answered, "The tone of the paper was not friendly." "Has the paper since ever contained anything friendly to Mr. Hart, or in commendation of him?" to which the defendant answered, "No." To each of these questions objection was made, but they were allowed to be asked.
The evidence tended to show that the article in question was written by the person whose signature it bore; that it was taken by him to the editor of the defendant's paper, and was accepted; and that the defendant did not know of the writing or publishing of this particular article, being out of town on the day when this took place. This evidence was uncontradicted, but there was other evidence in regard to the general management of the paper.
The defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury as follows:
The judge declined to give either of the instructions asked, but instructed the jury, among other things not objected to, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Toledo Newspaper Co.
...(Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals); Van Derveer v. Sutphin, 5 Ohio St. 293; Larrabee v. Tribune Co., 36 Minn. 141, 30 N.W. 462; Commonwealth v. Damon, 136 Mass. 441; Enos Enos, 135 N.Y. 609, 32 N.E. 123; Thibault v. Sessions, 101 Mich. 279, 59 N.W. 624; Cushing v. Hederman, 117 Iowa, 637, 91 ......
-
Territory Hawai`i v. Crowley
...E. 80; Paxton v. Woodward, 31 Mont. 195, 78 Pac. 215;Johnson v. Commonwealth, 10 Sad. Pa.] 514; Farley v. Publishing Co., 113 Mo. App. 216, 87 S. W. 565;Commonwealth v. Damon, 136 Mass. 441.) Whatever may be characterized civilly as libelous per se is criminally libelous within the defin......
-
Conroy v. Fall River Herald News Co.
...nisi prius that apparently are not now followed in England. Bodwell v. Swan, 3 Pick. 376; Watson v. Moore, 2 Cush. 133, 137;Commonwealth v. Damon, 136 Mass. 441, 448, and cases cited; Doane v. Grew, 220 Mass. 171, 180, 107 N.E. 620, L.R.A.1915C, 774, Ann.Cas.1917A, 338. Only in the Watson c......
-
Commonwealth v. Enwright
...of the law. ‘If the defendant desired further instructions upon this part of the case, it was his duty to ask for them.’ Commonwealth v. Damon, 136 Mass. 441, 450;Commonwealth v. Meserve, 154 Mass. 64, 75, 27 N. E. 997;Brick v. Bosworth, 162 Mass. 334, 336, 39 N. E. 36;Commeonwealth v. Jewe......