Haines v. Schultz

• Decision Date: 07 June 1888
• Citation: 50 N.J.L. 481,14 A. 488
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: HAINES v. SCHULTZ.

14 A. 488

50 N.J.L. 481

HAINES

v. SCHULTZ.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 7, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to circuit court, Passaic county; before Justice DIXON.

Argued February term, 1888, before BEASLEY, C. J., and MAGIE and GARRISON, 33.

John W. Grigg, for Edward B. Haines, plaintiff in error. Z. M. Ward, for Mamie Schultz, defendant in error.

GARRISON, J. The defendant below, who is the proprietor of the Morning Call, was sued in libel for uttering the following language of and concerning the plaintiff: "HOUSE ROBBED. A Young Lady Hoarder Supposed to Know Something about It. Last night, while Mr. and Mrs. Richard Krowley were at Little Coney island, their house, No. 3 Hamburgh avenue, was entered by some one, who got away with a considerable amount of clothing. Mr. Krowley is of the opinion that a young lady boarder named Mamie Schultz knows some thing about the theft. The girl has been a boarder at the house for about seven weeks; and, according to Dick's statement, Mamie had a number of admirers, and on several occasions she has stayed out late at nights; and, no later than last Sunday night, she climbed through the window of Mr. and Mrs. Krowley's sleeping apartments, and Dick is of the opinion that she gained an entrance through the same window last night. On entering the house, Mrs. Krowley discovered a bureau drawer and clothes closet open, and, to her surprise, found that the house had been ransacked, and a large number of pieces of her underclothing, together with ribbons and other articles, were missing. Dick visited the police station, and notified Captain Bimson, who advised him to go before the recorder this morning and make a complaint." The testimony shows that this article was written by a reporter in the employ of the defendant, and that it was inserted in the paper without defendant's knowledge; his first intimation of it being the service upon him of the declaration in this cause. No special damages were shown. The plaintiff recovered a substantial verdict against defendant.

Five exceptions taken by defendant at the trial are the subject of as many assignments of error. The first is upon the refusal of the court to order a nonsuit at the close of plaintiff's case for alleged failure of proof.' This exception may be dismissed with the remark that the question as to whether the language published tended to disgrace the plaintiff was properly left to the jury. The other assignments are based upon exceptions to the charge of the court, and are addressed to that portion of the charge in which the law as to exemplary damages is stated. The fourth assignment is as follows: "But the defendant says: 'I personally had no hand in this.' That is true; but it appears that Mr. Keegan, his reporter, wrote it, and had it inserted in the newspaper, and from the time it was written up to the present day the defendant has never had a word of blame for Mr. Keegan, and Mr. Keegan still remains in his employ. So far as appears, his conduct is approved by his employer. There is nothing in the case to show that it is disapproved. If you believe, then, that Mr. Keegan's conduct is approved by his...