Diener v. Star-Chronicle Pub. Co.
Decision Date | 12 November 1910 |
Citation | 132 S.W. 1143,230 Mo. 613 |
Parties | DIENER v. STAR-CHRONICLE PUB. CO. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In a political campaign, defendant newspaper publishing company, under the caption, "Is he the same coroner?" published an article in the form of an interrogation asking whether B., Held, that the use of the word "killed" in such article was not subject to the innuendo that it was intended to charge that plaintiff, who was the chauffeur, had feloniously taken the child's life, meaning nothing more than that the child was deprived of life, and that the article was not libelous per se, as to plaintiff, though it might have been libelous as to B. under the rule that a party cannot support a charge of libel by showing that the same publication libels another.
9. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 19)—LIBELOUS PUBLICATION—CONSTRUCTION.
If one part of an alleged libelous publication may explain another part, and the intent may be gathered not only from the alleged libelous words, but from the context, all parts of the publication must be read together to determine whether it is libelous in fact.
10. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 100)—PLEADING —OMISSION.
The omission of any part of an alleged libelous publication from a pleading, making a material alteration in the sense, is fatal.
11. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 105)—EVIDENCE—MEANING OF WORDS.
Where an alleged libelous publication referred to plaintiff as a chauffeur who had killed a child in the operation of an automobile, evidence that the word "killed" in such publication conveyed the idea to witness that plaintiff was guilty of the felonious taking of a human life was inadmissible.
12. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 90)—FREE SPEECH—FREEDOM OF PRESS.
While the courts are charged with the duty of protecting freedom of speech and of the press, it is the use, and not the abuse, of free speech and free press that is protected.
13. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 48)—MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST—PRIVILEGE.
Plaintiff, while operating an automobile, struck and killed a child of tender age, and the coroner permitted the matter to pass without an official investigation. After the coroner had been nominated for re-election, defendant published a newspaper article with reference to the coroner in the form of an interrogation asking whether he was not the same person who joined with the police in letting plaintiff go free after he had run down and killed a little child in the street, and, if he was, whether that was a good reason for continuing his term of service, etc. Held that, since the killing of the child in a public street by an automobile was a matter of public interest, the publication, not being abusive or vituperative, was privileged as a matter of law.
In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles C. Allen, Judge.
Action by Joseph Diener against the Star-Chronicle Publishing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Robert & Robert, for appellant. Nathan Frank, for respondent.
Tort for libel. Cast on demurrer to his original petition, plaintiff pleaded over. Cast on demurrer to his amended petition he stood, refused to plead over, suffered judgment, filed a motion for a new trial, excepted to the order overruling the same, had his bill of exceptions settled, allowed, and filed, and came up on appeal. The amended petition reads: The demurrer reads: "Comes defendant, Star-Chronicle Publishing Co., and demurs to the amended petition of plaintiff filed in the above-entitled cause, for that: The matter and things stated and charged therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant."
1. Plaintiff assumed to preserve his petition, the demurrer, the ruling sustaining it, his exception thereto, a motion for a new trial, and his exception to overruling the latter, in a bill of exceptions. Fortunately, it happens in this instance that no harm came to him by that course. This, for the reason that the record proper, brought up in his abstract, also preserved such matter and his point. But inadvertence in the use of rules of practice results in cases riding off on appeal without a disposition of the merits. In this view, caution is better than cure, as the precept puts it. Therefore, it is wise, to stamp out heresies, to put up signs at the point of divergence from the beaten path. Via trita est tutissima, 10 Coke, 142. To illustrate, if the ruling on the demurrer, the demurrer itself, and the trial petition had been preserved nowhere else than in a bill of exceptions, this appellant would have nothing here to review; for if anything is settled it is that such matter has no place in a bill of exceptions. It is part of the record proper, and if it appear only in such bill it is the same as if it did not appear at all. The rules to go by are:
(a) A demurrer is part of the record proper. It must appear there. It needs no bill of exceptions to preserve it. The ruling on it is likewise a part of the record proper, and no exceptions are necessary to have that ruling reviewed, provided error on the demurrer is not waived by pleading over. Spears v. Bond, 79 Mo., loc. cit. 469; City of Tarkio v. Clark, 186 Mo., loc. cit. 293, 294, 85 S. W. 329; Mallinckrodt Chem. Works v. Nemnich, 169 Mo., loc. cit. 395, 69 S. W. 355.
(b) It results, as a sequence, that a motion for a new trial is not necessary in order to review the ruling on a demurrer, since that motion is directed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kutcher v. Post Printing Co.
...107 Md. 278, 68 A. 566; Naulty v. Bulletin Co., 206 Pa. St. 128, 55 A. 862; Gordon v. Journal Co., 81 Vt. 297, 69 A. 742; Diener v. Star Co. (Mo. App.), 132 S.W. 1143; Macurda v. Journal Co. (Me.), 82 A. 438; v. State (Tex.), 141 S.W. 975; Weeks v. News Pub. Co. (Md.), 83 A. 162; Hoffland v......
-
State ex rel. Crouser v. Mercer
...and should not be included in a bill of exceptions. 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, Section 580. See Diener v. Star-Chronicle Publishing Company, 230 Mo. 613, 132 S.W. 1143, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 216. In Brown v. Cook, 77 W.Va. 356, 87 S.E. 454, L.R.A.1916D, 220, this Court held that, when a plea is......
-
Kansas City v. Halvorson
...152 S.W. (2d) 693; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W. (2d) 592; Fritschle v. Kettle River Co., 139 S.W. (2d) 948; Diener v. Star Pub. Co., 230 Mo. 613, 132 S.W. 1143; State ex rel. v. Sevier, 92 S.W. (2d) 102; Massey-Harris Har. Co. v. Fed. Res. Bk., 48 S.W. (2d) 158; Norris v. Letchworth, 15......
-
Warren v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.
...Co., 241 Mo. 609; Clark v. McBaine, 299 Mo. 77; People's Bank v. Goodwin, 128 S.W. 220; McClung v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 279 Mo. 398; Diener v. Star, 230 Mo. 613; Cook v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 241 Mo. 326; State ex rel. v. Cox, 298 S.W. 837; Davis v. Mo. Pub. Co., 19 S.W. (2d) 695; Williams v. Ch......