Hanaw v. Jackson Patriot Co.

• Citation: 57 N.W. 734,98 Mich. 506
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 26 January 1894
• Parties: HANAW v. JACKSON PATRIOT CO.

57 N.W. 734

98 Mich. 506

HANAW v. JACKSON PATRIOT CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 26, 1894

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; Erastus Peck, Judge.

Action by Ferdinand Hanaw against the Jackson Patriot Company for libel. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Blair Wilson & Blair, (John Atkinson and Wm. L. Carpenter, of counsel,) for appellant.

Thomas E. Barkworth, (Thomas A. Wilson, of counsel,) for appellee.

HOOKER J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of not guilty, rendered in an action brought by him for libel against the defendants, who are publishers of the Jackson Patriot. The publications complained of grew out of a transaction between the plaintiff and one Stillwell, the traveling agent of a Chicago house from whom the plaintiff had previously bought some varnish. Being asked to pay for the same, a difficulty arose between himself and Stillwell, which was followed, later in the day by an assault upon Stillwell by the plaintiff upon the street. The court instructed the jury that "the various publications set forth in the plaintiff's declaration contain the following statements, which are libelous per se: In the article pleaded in the first count the statements that the plaintiff was a cowardly assailant and that the attack upon Stillwell was brutal and unmanly, were each libelous. The article set out in the second count charges the plaintiff with cowardice. That charge is libelous. The article set out in the third count in substance charges the plaintiff with making an assault on Stillwell by belaboring Stillwell over the head with a heavy horsewhip, and without provocation. This was libelous. The article charged in the fourth count is libelous per se, in charging the plaintiff with having attempted to horsewhip a crippled Chicago traveling man of the name of Stillwell for light provocation, or no provocation at all; and with having sneaked up and taken Stillwell unawares, and also in calling the plaintiff a guilty scoundrel. And, in the article upon which the fifth count is based, the charge that the assault upon Stillwell was brutal and unmanly, and that the plaintiff acted in a cowardly manner, were each libelous,"-and continued as follows: "There are no other distinct statements in the various publications declared upon which are libelous per se, and no others upon which the plaintiff can rely as a cause of action, [to which plaintiff excepted;] but you are at liberty to consider the entire publications declared upon, and read in evidence, for the purpose of explaining the parts which I have referred to, and in affecting the question of damages." The counsel for the plaintiff assigns error upon this, and contends that the articles were libelous per se in the following particulars, viz. as to plaintiff being indebted to the house of which Stillwell was agent, as to Stillwell's going there and collecting a bill, and as to plaintiff's having deducted a certain amount from a bill which he was owing, without authority. Plaintiff asserts that these publications imputed dishonesty to him. The words referred to by plaintiff are found in several counts, viz.: In the first count: "The cause of the trouble was a dispute over $1.25, which Hanaw, (said plaintiff meaning,) who is connected with the J. W. Hewitt Cart Company, deducted without authority from a bill for varnish rendered by Mr. Stillwell's house. Mr. Stillwell characterized the proceedings as a 'dirty, Jew trick."' In the second count: "Lawyer Hewitt spoke at some length upon what he considered to be extenuating circumstances. Mr. Stillwell, he said, had angered Mr. Hanaw (said plaintiff meaning) past all forbearance, by characterizing his action in deducting $1.25 from a varnish bill...