Hake v. Brames

• Decision Date: 25 April 1884
• Docket Number: 11,522
• Parties: Hake v. Brames
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

95 Ind. 161

Hake v. Brames

No. 11,522

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 25, 1884

From the Superior Court of Allen County.

W. H Coombs, R. C. Bell and S. L. Morris, for appellant.

H Colerick, W. S. Oppenheim, J. Q. Stratton and E. Stratton for appellee.

Bicknell C. C. Zollars, J., took no part in the decision of this cause.

OPINION

Bicknell, C. C.

The appellee sued the appellant for a libel, which was as follows:

"Fort Wayne, November 2d, 1882.

"Mr. Peter Certia--Sir: I see by the morning papers that one Louis Brames is attacking you. I know this same Brames. I was unfortunate enough to have him in my employ at one time as a book-keeper. He is a liar. I would not believe him under oath.

Frank Hake."

The defendant demurred to the complaint for want of facts sufficient. He also demurred to each of the three sets of words alleged to be libellous, for the same reason. These demurrers were overruled.

The defendant answered in four paragraphs, of which the fourth was the general denial. Demurrers were sustained to each of the first three paragraphs of answer, and the issues upon the complaint and general denial were tried by the court, who found for the plaintiff $ 150, and rendered judgment therefor. The defendant appealed. He assigns, as errors, the overruling of the demurrers to the complaint and to each of its sets of words, and the sustaining of the demurrers to each of the first three paragraphs of the answer. He concedes in his brief, that the demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled, but he claims that the words of the first and third set are not libellous; that in the first set "the appellant was simply bewailing his own misfortune and not making any charge against the appellee," and that the third set, at most, was a comment upon and a qualification of the main charge contained in the second set, which alone contained a substantial libel, to wit: "He is a liar."

The three sets of words were:

1. I was unfortunate enough to have him in my employ at one time as a book-keeper. 2. He is a liar. 3. I would not believe him under oath.

Each of these sets of words is libellous. Written or printed matter may be libellous without charging a crime.

"As to those libels which by holding a person up to scorn or ridicule, and, still more, to any stronger feeling of contempt or execration, impair him in the enjoyment of general society, and injure those imperfect rights of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence, which man has with respect to man, it is chiefly in this branch of libels, that the action for words spoken, and for words written, substantially differ." Folk. Starkie Slander, section 154; Gabe v. McGinnis, 68 Ind. 538; Bain v. Myrick, 88 Ind. 137. Each of the three sets of words contains an imputation injurious to the plaintiff. There was no error in overruling the demurrers thereto.

The three paragraphs of answer were pleaded to the entire complaint. Each of them therefore is insufficient, if it answers only a part of the complaint. Stahl v Hammontree, 72 Ind. 103; Hancock v....