GRANT
J.
Action
of libel. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,000. The
libelous article was published in the Coldwater Republican
July 20, 1888, which newspaper was owned and published by the
defendants. It reads as follows: "A Kentucky Sensation,
in which are Some Cold water People. The following excerpts
are taken from the Louisville, Ky., Commercial of July 18th.
All the parties are well known in this city.
Lexington, Ky., July 17th. Considering the many points of
interest, the varied and suspicious movements of the
principal actors, and the scandals which have arisen since
investigation commenced, probably the suit for ejectment
filed by Sidney Clay against B. S. Wright in the Bourbon
circuit court, in which depositions have been taken, is the
most sensational suit ever on docket in a court in central
Kentucky. * * * To get at the case it requires going back to
a couple of years ago. At that time a gentleman with the
haughty bearing of a lord, the style of a prince, the figure
of an Adonis, and to all appearances an unlimited purse, made
his appearance in the little Bourbon capital. As is usual, he
said he was on the lookout for a fine blue-grass farm on
which to place his superb stud of trotters, which was headed
by the noted stallion Royal Fearnaught. Thus Mr. B. S. Wright
made his advent into the county of Bourbon. * * * At last,
however, he selected a place, which proved to be what is
known as the 'Sidney Clay Home,' owned by the
gentleman of that name, who is perhaps the wealthiest
individual in Bourbon county. He informed Mr. Clay his place
was the one he wanted, but he did not desire at that time to
purchase it, as the locality might not suit him after a
residence for a while in the neighborhood, but he was willing
to lease it for a term of years, with the privilege of buying
it at the expiration of the time stated. These terms suited
Mr. Clay, and the lease was drawn up, the papers signed, and
the key of the old homestead turned over to Mr. Wright. * * *
When he (Wright) got well settled in his new home, what has
proved to be his side partner, a man named Ira H. Harris,
arrived from Cold water, Mich., and took up quarters at the
farm. He was accompanied by two ladies, one of whom was
Charles Harris' wife, while the other was a beautiful
young girl of 15 years, named Miss Tory Osborne. From their
advent in the neighborhood the scandal commenced, which
promises to end only when all of the principal actors have
bid fair Bourbon adieu. Hardly had they taken up their abode
in the mansion on the farm before rumors of their conduct
became noised about in that locality. It was at first thought
to be only servants' gossip, but in a few months the
affair culminated in the discovery being made that the fair
young girl had succumbed to Harris' fascinations, and was
unfortunately in an interesting condition.
Things were not in this condition long, as Ira G. Harris, at
Wright's suggestion, induced a Mrs. Farons, a
boarding-house keeper of Coldwater, Mich., to come out and
run that part of the business. She too was accompanied by a
young lady, who proved to be her daughter, aged 18 years. Not
long after they had taken up their quarters on the place
another scandal developed, as by some hook or crook it was
discovered that Wright and Mrs. Farons were occupying the
same apartment, while Harris and the daughter were doing
likewise in another part of the building. This was carried on
for some time, and then Wright and Harris had a falling out,
which, however, did not develop until hostilities had ceased,
when the gossipers found out that a change had come over the
inmates of their notorious establishment, as Wright had taken
up with the girl, while Harris and the old lady had suddenly
become to be on the most intimate terms. At this stage, like
an apparition, Mrs. Farons' husband appeared on the
scene. It was thought this would bring the crisis, but it
failed to materialize; for if the old man made any
discoveries he kept them to himself." The defendants
received by mail a copy of the Louisville Commercial, with
this article marked, and published it the next day in their
daily issue, as an item of news. The same week it was also
published in the weekly issue of the paper. The
plaintiff's name was Farrand instead of Farons. Shortly
after the appearance of the article in defendants' paper,
and on the same day, a brother of the plaintiff went to the
defendants, informed them that he was plaintiff's
brother, that plaintiff had not been in Kentucky, and
demanded a retraction of the article. On July 27th the
defendants published in their paper the following: "The
brother of Bertha Farrand, whose name was mentioned in the
Louisville (Ky.) Commercial, which was copied last week
Friday in this paper, says that his sister is here, and has
been here. If this be so, the Commercial made a great
mistake, which we presume it would willingly rectify were its
mistake made known to it, as no journal will
willfully do any person, and certainly not a young woman, a
wrong." On July 31st the following appeared in
defendants' paper: "Notwithstanding the spirit of
fairness which the Republican has exhibited to wards Miss
Farons, who is an entire stranger to us, and our readiness,
expressed July 20th to the man who claimed to be her brother,
to publish any statement in explanation of the facts in the
case as he saw them which he might wish to make, (which offer
he has refused,) the party aggrieved, with A. T. Lanphere as
attorney, has seen fit to serve
papers upon A. J. Aldrich & Co. for trespass on the case in
the sum of $5,000. At our solicitation, a friend saw Mr. Ben
Wright, in Detroit, during the races last week, and
interviewed him as to the statements made in the Louisville
(Ky.) Commercial article of July 18th, extracts from which
were copied into the Republican of July 20th. He states that
the article is a piece of spite work on the part of his
landlord and of the reporter for the paper, and declares that
the statements made in the Commercial were false, both as
regarding himself and other persons named." Plaintiff
had lived with her father and mother in Cold water, who had
kept a boardinghouse very near the publication office of the
defendants' paper. They gave up the boarding-house in
March, 1888, the father and mother going to Kentucky, the
plaintiff going to live with an uncle in St. Joseph county.
The plea was the general issue, with notice of justification;
that the article was published in good faith; that, if false,
it was due to mistake, which was corrected in the next issue
of the paper; and that defendants offered to publish a
correction of the same in as conspicuous a manner and place
in their paper as was the article sued upon, if any one
desired it to be done. In reply to special questions, the
jury found that the defendants were not actuated by any
malice in the publication, and that they had no
malice towards the plaintiff when the article was published.
1. The
first allegation of error is that the court erred in allowing
the following question to one of the plaintiff's
witnesses: "When the article appeared, and your
attention was called to it, to whom did you think at the time
it referred?" The authorities are not agreed as to the
admissibility of such evidence. The defendants insist that
the jury should have determined this question from the
article itself. Probably, in this case, the jury would have
found no difficulty in determining from the articles
themselves that the plaintiff was meant, for in the second
article her name is spelled...
