Duncan v. Williams

• Decision Date: 20 June 1904
• Citation: 81 S.W. 1175,107 Mo. App. 539
• Parties: DUNCAN v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

81 S.W. 1175

107 Mo. App. 539

DUNCAN v. WILLIAMS.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 20, 1904.

LIBEL — CONCLUSIVENESS OF VERDICT.

1. Under Const. art. 2, § 14, and Rev. St. 1889, § 3872, making the jury the judge of the law in libel, the court cannot, even after instructing that the publication is libelous per se, and that the answer does not state a defense, set aside a verdict for defendant.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Gentry County; Gallatin Craig, Judge.

Action by Maggie M. Duncan against Vincent T. Williams. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

C. H. S. Goodman and W. F. Dalby, for appellant. Aleshire & Benson and McCullough & Showen, for respondent.

SMITH, P. J.

The petition alleged that the defendant printed and published in the Stanberry Herald the following article, to wit: "The case of the city against Maggie M. Duncan was disposed of in the circuit court, where it had went on an appeal, by the defendant pleading guilty, and was fined one dollar and costs." The defendant interposed a demurrer to the petition, based upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was by the court overruled. He thereupon filed an answer, in which he admitted the publication, and pleaded the truth thereof, and that the same was published without malice, and only as a news item. The cause was tried to a jury, and at the conclusion of all the evidence the court, for plaintiff, told it: First. "The jury are instructed that the instructions given by the court indicate the court's views of the law applicable to this case, but that said instructions are given not for the purpose of binding their consciences, but of enlightening their judgment, for, notwithstanding the instructions given, the jury are judges of the law and of the facts." Second. "The court instructs the jury that the words containing the charge complained of in the petition are libelous in and of themselves, and their publication of and concerning the plaintiff imparts malice; that the answer admits that said words were published of and concerning the plaintiff; and, if the jury believe that the plaintiff was aggrieved or damaged by such publications, then they will find for the plaintiff, and assess her damages at such sum, not exceeding two thousand dollars, as they believe the plaintiff entitled to under all the facts and circumstances in evidence." And, third, "the court declares the law to be that the facts pleaded by the defendant in his answer, even if established by the evidence, do not constitute a complete defense to the action, and should only be consulted in mitigation of damages." And for defendant the court gave the following: "The court instructs the jury that in a case of this kind it can give such instructions as it deems proper, but the jury are not only the sole judges of the...