Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1887
• Citation: 37 Minn. 277,34 N.W. 30
• Parties: GRIBBLE v PIONEER PRESS CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

37 Minn. 277

34 N.W. 30

GRIBBLEvPIONEER PRESS CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In an action for a libel, expressed in ordinary language, witnesses should not be allowed to testify as to the meaning which they understood the libel to convey, or that they understood it to apply to the plaintiff an offensive term found in the article.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; WILKIN, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover for an alleged libel contained in an article published in the issue of defendant's newspaper of October 25, 1884, which, in commenting upon certain libel suits against defendant then pending, stated “that in the great majority of cases libel suits for pecuniary damages are only brought against reputable newspapers by the meanest sort of scallawags, shysters, and adventurers. For the most part they are simply mercenary speculation upon the chance of obtaining a verdict from an ignorant and prejudiced jury by the aid of some crafty lawyer who is usually a partner in the speculation; that is to say, the lawyer takes the case as a purely business venture, on condition of his being paid half, or some other proportion, of the amount of damages awarded if he should succeed in bamboozling the jury. The Pioneer Press has been pestered with a multitude of such libel suits, of which it has now on hand six or seven, exclusive of Donnelly's mock contribution, almost without exception brought or instigated by notorious sharpers, shysters, confidence men, adventurers, and other disreputable people, as a means of raising the wind, or occasionally as a sham plea in arrest of judgment, preparatory to their fleeing from the country. Mr. Donnelly is more than welcome to all the political advantage he can reap by enrolling himself in this congenial company. His able counsel, Mr. Brisbin, is to be congratulated in having been chosen to represent the common griefs of Mr. Gribble and Mr. Donnelly in the suits of these delectable worthies against the Pioneer Press.” Plaintiff had a verdict. From an order granting a new trial plaintiff appeals.

Edwin Gribble, attorney, in person.

W.D. Cornish, for Pioneer Press Co., respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

The alleged libel upon which this action is brought will be found in the reporter's statement of the case. Upon the trial of the cause the court permitted several witnesses to testify that they, at the time of the publication, understood the article as using the term “shyster” as applicable to the plaintiff. Upon subsequent consideration, the learned judge who tried the cause having come to the conclusion that such evidence was inadmissible, a new trial was for that reason granted, and upon the same question the case is now before us for review.

We are of the opinion that the learned judge was right in his conclusion that the evidence was not admissible. Van Vechten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 211;Gibson v. Williams, 4 Wend. 320; Wright v. Paige, *42 N. Y. 581, 583, 584; Snell v. Snow, 13 Metc. 278; White v. Sayward, 33 Me. 326; Rangler v. Hummel, 37 Pa. St. 130; McCue v. Ferguson, 73 Pa. St. 333; Daines v. Hartley, 3 Exch. 200; and see opinion of WALWORTH, Ch., in Maynard v. Beardsley, 7 Wend. 560.

This is in accordance with the principle of the law of evidence, which in general limits the testimony of witnesses to a statement of the facts and circumstances within their...