Grossman v. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1941
• Docket Number: 37115
• Citation: Grossman v. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co., 149 S.W.2d 362, 347 Mo. 869 (Mo. 1941)
• Parties: Walter G. Grossman, Appellant, v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

149 S.W.2d 362

347 Mo. 869

Walter G. Grossman, Appellant, v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company

No. 37115

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 3, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Eugene J Sartorius, Judge.

Affirmed.

Chas F. Mueller, Shepard R. Evans and P. K. Johnson for appellant.

(1) A libel is the malicious defamation of a person made public by any writing, sign, picture, representation or effigy tending to provoke him to wrath or expose him to public hatred contempt, or ridicule, or deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse.Sec. 4366, R. S. 1929.A libel is a malicious defamation, expressed either by printing or by signs or pictures, or the like, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or publish the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or financial injury.Ch. 38, par. 398, sec. 177, Callaghan's Illinois, 1935, Statutes.(2) In interpreting an article as to whether it is or it is not libelous, the entire article must be construed as a whole.The question to be determined is what would the reader gather from the whole article.Published matters in a newspaper are not designed for the reading of experts in the law, but are addressed to all the people in all walks of life.The libelous effect may be by inference, insinuation, arrangement, form and style.Hagener v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.,158 S.W. 54;Brown v. Publishers, Geo. Knapp & Co.,112 S.W. 474;Seested v. Kansas City Post,31 S.W.2d 1045;Willfred Coal Co. v. Sapp,193 Ill.App. 400.(3)An article need not in direct words charge one with a crime, in order to be libelous.The commission of a crime or violation of a public trust may be conveyed by inference, insinuation, form, style and arrangement.Words written of one holding public office, engaged in a profession or business, and which tend to impair his credit, charge him with fraud or indirect dealings, or which tend to injure him in his trade or profession are libelous.Seested v. Kansas City Post,31 S.W.2d 1045;Julian v. Kansas City Star,107 S.W. 496;Martin v. Mattoon Journal Co.,208 Ill.App. 53.(4) In order for a report to be privileged on the ground that a proceeding is judicial in nature, it must be shown that there occurred a public investigation, a submission to the judicial mind for judicial action.Publication of a statement by counsel in the case after trial is not privileged.Brown v. Globe Pub. Co.,213 Mo. 611, 112 S.W. 462;Meriwether v. Publishers,109 S.W. 750;Warren v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.,78 S.W.2d 404;Cooper v. Illinois Pub. & Ptg. Co., 218 Ill.App. 91.

Jones, Hocker, Gladney & Grand for respondent.

(1)The article sued on is not libelous.Wilson v. Bond & Inv. Co.,46 S.W.2d 922;Diener v. Pub. Co.,232 Mo. 429;Branch v. Knopp & Co.,222 Mo. 595;Hauser v. Bristow,123 P. 725;Phillips v. Indemnity Co.,28 F.2d 701;Quinn v. Inv. Co.,90 N.W. 349.(2)The article must be interpreted in its entirety.Diener v. Pub. Co.,230 Mo. 621.(3) The petition as a whole, including the colloquium and innuendoes, is sufficient to state a cause of action.(4) The innuendoes must be consistent with the publication and must not be strained, forced or unnatural.Diener v. Pub. Co.,230 Mo. 613;McWilliams v. Printing Co.,188 Mo.App. 504.(5) An objection to the introduction of evidence for the reason that the petition does not state a cause of action is proper, if the petition wholly fails so to do.Toler v. Coover,71 S.W.2d 1068;Godschaux Sugars v. Quinn, 95 S.W.2d 82.

Westhues, C. Cooley and Bohling, CC., concur.

OPINION

WESTHUES

Plaintiff, Grossman, filed this suit against defendant publishing company to recover actual damages in the sum of $ 25,000 and a like sum as punitive damages, for publishing an alleged libelous article.Defendant filed a demurrer to the petition which was overruled.Defendant then filed an answer to the merits.When the case was called for trial the judge who had ruled on the demurrer was not presiding.When plaintiff called his first witness to testify the defendant's counsel objected to the introduction of evidence on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action.The court heard arguments on the question and sustained the objection.Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant and after an unsuccessful effort to obtain a new trial plaintiff appealed.

The petition will not be set forth in full as many allegations thereof are not pertinent to the issues here involved.From the petition we learn that appellant was a Justice of the Peace within and for the city of Belleville, Illinois, and also a member of the legal profession in good standing.It was alleged that in the city of St. Louisthe defendant published a newspaper known as the Globe-Democrat, which enjoyed a wide circulation in localities where appellant was well and favorably known.Plaintiff's petition then stated as follows:

"Plaintiff for his cause of action states that on or about May 16th, 1930, one Meyer Hurwitz, for and on behalf of the Meyer Hurwitz Jewelry Company, a corporation, of the City of East St. Louis, Illinois, paid to the plaintiff, a duly elected and qualified Justice of the Peace as aforesaid, and while in the exercise of the duties of his said office, the sum of $ 234.75, representing personal property taxes due the County of St. Clair and State of Illinois for the year 1926, and that plaintiff issued his receipt No. 6270 to said Meyer Hurwitz Jewelry Company on said date, reciting therein that plaintiff had received the sum of $ 234.75 as payment of personal property taxes for the year 1926; that on the 2nd day of August, 1930, plaintiff paid said funds to the County Collector of said St. Clair County, and that said funds were duly recorded and posted on the 6th day of August, 1930, in said Collector's Book for the year 1926 for the Town of East St. Louis, Personal Property, St. Clair County, No. 1, Page 177, Line 21; that on or about the 5th day of March, 1936, Louis P. Zerweck, State's attorney to and for the County of St. Clair and State of Illinois, filed a suit in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, wherein the People of the State of Illinois were plaintiffs and the Meyer Hurwitz Jewelry Company, a corporation, was defendant, being cause No. 1689, and wherein plaintiff sought to collect general personal property taxes in the sum of $ 1311.87, including the sum of $ 234.75 for the year 1925; that pursuant thereto said defendant, Meyer Hurwitz Jewelry Company, filed its answer, thereby generally denying plaintiff's cause aforementioned and affirmatively pleading payment of the sums set up in the various paragraphs in said cause, but omitting the plea of payment of said general taxes on personal property for the year 1925; thereby admitting that said 1925 personal property taxes remained unpaid; that said cause was set for trial in said Circuit Court, and that on or about the 20th day of May, 1938, for reasons unknown to this plaintiff, and without judicial hearing, said Meyer Hurwitz Jewelry Company produced said receipt No. 6270 theretofore issued by this plaintiff for the 1926 personal property taxes as aforesaid and thereby purporting to have paid the personal property taxes for the year 1925; that plaintiff's said receipt No. 6270 was then and there placed in and made a part of said court file No. 1689 in said Circuit Court, although said receipt was not material or relevant to the issues of said cause."

Plaintiff pleaded a statute of the State of Illinois which declared it to be a felony for a Justice of the Peace to embezzle tax money coming into his hands as such justice.The petition then alleged the following:

"Plaintiff further alleges that well knowing the aforementioned facts or by the exercise of due care and diligence, defendant, its agents, servants and employees could have known said facts but recklessly and in wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights and intending wickedly, designedly and maliciously to injure plaintiff in his good name, fame and credit, and to impeach his honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, financial injury and deprive him of public confidence in him as an attorney at law or as a public officer; to cause it to be believed by his neighbors and among good and worthy citizens including his clients as a lawyer and a public officer of the State of Illinois, particulary St. Clair County thereof, and of the State of Missouri, particularly the City of St. Louis therein, that plaintiff had been guilty of corrupt, dishonest and dishonorable and criminal conduct in and about the receiving by virtue of his office and unlawfully withholding, secreting and converting to his own use money belonging to the County of St. Clair and State of Illinois, did falsely, wrongfully, wickedly, designedly with malice and malicious intent toward plaintiff print and publish of and concerning plaintiff on the 21st day of May, 1938, in a newspaper known as the 'St. Louis Globe-Democrat' the following false, libelous, malicious, scandalous and defamatory words, article and matter, to-wit:

"'WANTS J. P. TO EXPLAIN TAX RECEIPT HE ISSUED.'

"'State's Attorney L. P. Zerweck said yesterday he would question Justice of the Peace, Walter G. Grossman, of Belleville, concerning a receipt of $ 234.75 for personal property taxes, issued by him to the Meyer Hurwitz Jewelry Company of East St. Louis.

"'In Circuit Court yesterday the Company was asked to pay $ 1311.87 in personal property taxes.The company contended it owed but $ 633.09, and produced two receipts, one for $ 234.75 allegedly paid to...