Good v. Grit Publishing Co.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1908 |
| Docket Number | 125-1907 |
| Citation | 36 Pa.Super. 238 |
| Parties | Good, Appellant, v. Grit Publishing Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 31, 1907 [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter]
Appeal by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Northumberland Co.-1904, No. 172, on verdict for defendant in case of O. W. Good v. Grit Publishing Company.
Trespass for libel. Before Savidge, P. J.
The court charged as follows:
Gentlemen of the jury: This is an action by O. W. Good against Grit Publishing Company for libel. The alleged libelous article was published in the city edition of " Pennsylvania Grit" on November 1, 1903, and republished, in connection with other matter, on the eighth day of the same month.
It grew out of a controversy in the orphans' court of Lycoming county over the account of the administration of the estate of John Good, father of O. W. Good, filed by a brother of the plaintiff, John C. Good, some time previous to the appearance of the article.
" Grit" did not purport to make on its own account charges against O. W. Good. What it undertook to do was to inform the public through its columns of the contents of the exceptions spoken of. This it had a right to do.
Courts constitute one of the branches of our government and all the proceedings of courts of justice are open to the public. The public has a right to know and it is proper it should be informed of what is transacted in its courts.
Newspapers are the recognized means of informing the general public of the transactions of courts of justice in any community, and they have, as such, a right to publish any and all things transacted before the court and such publication is what the law terms privileged. That means they have the privilege to publish them regardless of whether they reflect upon the parties to the litigation or upon the witnesses who appear to testify in regard to the litigation, or upon parties who may be compromised by the transactions of the court; and even though a party be charged with the highest crime, and the publication informs the world, informs its readers at large, of the fact that such a party is so charged, there can be no liability on the part of the paper making the publication, because it is publishing the transactions of a court of justice. It is privileged to tell to its readers what is going on in those courts, no difference whom it may hurt, or to what extent the parties affected thereby may be harmed in character or feelings.
But in so doing, gentlemen, they must not exaggerate, they must not be untruthful, they must not misrepresent. They must be careful to see to it that their publication or account of transactions, together with their comments upon it, fairly represent the facts as they appear in the transactions of the court -- in this case in the exceptions filed to the account of John C. Good, administrator of John Good. If they add to what the records or proceedings show, so as to additionally charge the party affected, they are responsible, because they have abused the privilege which the law accords them. They are bound to be truthful and fair in their statements and their publications as to what is or has been going on in court. They are privileged only to tell the truth. They are not privileged to exaggerate. If they exaggerate so that the public is misinformed, and the character of the party about whom the publication is made is injured by reason of the exaggeration or the misinformation, the paper is liable for such misinformation, such exaggeration, such false account.
Now the contention here is, not that this communication was not a privileged communication, not that " Grit" did not have the right to publish an account of these exceptions, but that " Grit" did not publish a true account of the exceptions; that the newspaper account represented to the public that O. W. Good was charged in the exceptions with misconduct and crime which, in fact, the exceptions did not charge. If that be true, the newspaper is liable. If it be otherwise, if the newspaper account is a fair epitome, representing in brief what, and only what, the exceptions themselves contain or charge, then there is no liability and cannot be any recovery.
The article is headed The article itself then goes on to say:
That is only a small portion of the article, but that contains the substance of the alleged untruthful representation of the charges contained in the exceptions to the account, and the claim to recover in this case is based almost wholly upon that portion of that article, as it appears in this issue of November 1, 1903, and as it appeared in the same form in the issue of the following week.
[You will first have to determine what " Grit" there represents as the charges against O. W. Good, preferred by the exceptions to the account of John C. Good. Does " Grit" tell its reading public that the exceptions to the account charge O. W. Good with the crime of larceny, forgery, robbery, conspiracy, embezzlement, or any of them? You will have to interpret the meaning of that article. You will have to determine what sense the average reader, the reader of ordinary intelligence, would take from the article. Would he consider that O. W. Good had been charged in the exceptions to the account, basing his judgments solely upon what he finds in this article, with the crime of larceny, with the crime of robbery, with the crime of forgery, conspiracy or embezzlement -- basing his judgment solely upon this article? Because at the time this article was published the general public was not furnished with the exceptions themselves so that it could interpret the article in connection with the exceptions. Those were not published by " Grit" until the following week. Taking then the article itself, as contained in " Grit" of November 1, 1903, what interpretation do you find the average reader would put upon it?
Now it is contented by the defendant that the general reader, the average reader, would not interpret that to mean that O. W. Good had been charged with the crime of larceny, because they say you must interpret that clause, which happens to be a part of the caption or headline, and take it in connection with the other portions of the article; that that is the fair way to interpret it. So you must.] But they contend that the charge of larceny, or the use of the term stolen, in the way in which it is used, does not necessarily mean that actual larceny had been intended in the exceptions. That the general public would understand that it might refer to embezzlement of the funds of the estate, or cheating the heirs in any dishonest way -- by trumped up accounts, or any other dishonest way. That the general public might take that meaning of the word stolen from the article as it appears.
Also it is contended that the word robbery, as it appears in the article, would not be taken by the reading public to mean that actual robbery had been perpetrated. Robbery always implies force; the taking of the property of another by means of force. [The technical and true meaning of larceny is the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another.
Now would the general public, the reading public, taking this article as it stands, or interpreting it by means of its context and with reference to any and all matters referred to in it, understands that O. W. Good was charged with the crime of larceny, or with the crime of robbery, or with the crime of forgery or embezzlement? Would that be the interpretation put upon that article by the general public? That is for you to find and not for the court.]
[In order to assist you, because I believe it to be correct, I say to you that in my judgment the charge of forgery, as against O. W. Good, is fairly deducible from the exceptions filed. However, I leave it to you to find whether it is or not.
The third exception is in this language: Exceptants except to the credit of $ 1,628.25 alleged to have been paid on May 15, 1903, to O. W. Good upon a note dated December 2, 1899, and for the reason that the signature of John Good to said note is a forgery.
Exception four -- Exceptants except to the credit of $ 1,015.96, alleged to have been paid on May 15, 1903, to O. W. Good on note of May 29, 1900, for the reason that the signature of John Good upon said note is a forgery.
On the other hand, I say to you that I see nothing in the exceptions to this account charging O. W. Good with the crime of larceny or robbery, but I leave it to you to say whether there is or not. I will leave it to you to say whether or not there is any other charge made than that of forgery. I am giving you my judgment only, but you are not bound by it.]
If you find there is nothing in the exceptions charging him with larceny, and you further find that the publication, putting upon it the interpretation that the ordinary reader would put upon it, means to convey to the reading public that these exceptions did charge him with larceny and robbery, you would have to find that the publication was not a fair presentation of the charges contained in the exceptions to the account,...
To continue reading
Request your trial