Hanson v. Bristow

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PORTER, J.:
• Citation: Hanson v. Bristow, 87 Kan. 72, 123 P. 725 (Kan. 1912)
• Decision Date: 11 May 1912
• Docket Number: 17,552
• Parties: JOHN F. HANSON, Appellant, v. JOSEPH L. BRISTOW, Appellee

123 P. 725

87 Kan. 72

JOHN F. HANSON, Appellant, v. JOSEPH L. BRISTOW, Appellee

No. 17,552

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 11, 1912

Decided January, 1912.

Appeal from Saline district court.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

1. LIBEL--Newspaper Statement--Truth Admitted--Innuendo. An action for libel will not lie for publishing in a newspaper a statement, admitted to be true to the effect that the plaintiff, a practicing attorney, was sent to jail for contempt of court, whether the court had or had not jurisdiction of the proceedings out of which the alleged contempt arose, and regardless of whether or not the plaintiff was in fact innocent of the offense for which the court imposed such imprisonment.

2. LIBEL--Same. The statement in a newspaper that the plaintiff, a practicing attorney, was a witness before the court and "refused to answer the court's questions as to what he had done with the money which he had collected for the estate, which he had not turned over to the proper parties," is held not to charge plaintiff with the crime of embezzlement or with misconduct as an attorney, and therefore is not libelous per se.

3. LIBEL--Same. The following was published in reference to the plaintiff:

"Hanson was one of the attorneys in the Linderholm case, and in closing up the estate it became necessary that Mr. Hanson should tell what had become of certain funds. Mr. Hanson refused to make any explanation to the probate court, and the court ordered him to jail for contempt."

Held, that the statement can not be made to appear libelous by an innuendo alleging that it was thereby intended to charge that plaintiff was guilty of the crime of embezzlement and of unprofessional conduct.

John F. Hanson, for the appellant.

Z. C. Millikin, for the appellee.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

Action for libel. The court sustained a demurrer to the petition. Plaintiff appeals. The petition alleged two separate libels, the first cause of action being based upon an article which appeared in "The Salina Evening Journal," of which defendant is the owner and publisher. The article read as follows:

"CHUCK HIM IN JAIL.

"John Hanson, Young Attorney, is in Trouble.

"HE 'SASSED' THE COURT.

"Because the Court Fined Him For Contempt--'The Jail for You,' Said Hizzoner.

"McPherson, Kansas, Aug. 25.--John Hanson, a young attorney of Lindsborg, was sent to jail yesterday by the probate judge, for contempt of court.

"Hanson has been for sometime employed as the attorney by the administrator of the Estate of a Mrs. Linderholm and was placed in charge of the collecting of several accounts due the estate.

"Attorney Hanson was yesterday arraigned before the court as a witness, and refused to answer the court's questions as to what he had done with the money which he had collected for the Estate, which he had not turned over to the proper parties. He continued to refuse to answer the inquiries of the court, and the judge finally assessed a fine of $ 25.00 for contempt of court, whereupon Hanson grew very abusive. He refused to pay the fine and threatened the judge, whereupon he was ordered confined in the jail where he now is. Hanson has now begun habeas corpus proceedings."

The petition alleged that the matter stated in the newspaper article was wholly false except the statement that plaintiff had been placed in jail, but that this was true only because he was in jail under false imprisonment; that, in truth, the probate court had no jurisdiction either of the contempt or of the proceedings out of which it arose, and that the plaintiff was not, in fact, guilty of any contempt of court; and further, that by the reference to his "'refusing to answer the court's questions as to what he had done with the money which he had collected for the estate which he had not turned over to the proper parties,' the defendant means to convey the idea that plaintiff had funds belonging to said estate and that he was withholding such funds in a way that would make it a crime as well as professional misconduct, when in fact this is all false in toto and no such questions were propounded." Upon this cause of action the plaintiff asked for damages in the sum of $ 15,000.

In support of the contention that the publication is libelous, the plaintiff makes two claims. First, he admits that the article spoke the truth in asserting as a fact that he was sent to jail for contempt of court, but alleges that because he was not in fact guilty of the charge, and because the court was without jurisdiction either of the contempt or of the proceedings out of which it arose, the matter is therefore libelous. In other words, the claim is that for a newspaper to publish a statement that one has been sent to the penitentiary for larceny is libelous, although it be true, unless the court which convicted and sentenced him had jurisdiction; and that in a case where the court had jurisdiction the statement is a libel if the judgment be afterwards set aside upon appeal on the ground that the person convicted was not guilty. The mere statement of the proposition contended for makes its absurdity so apparent as not to require further comment.

The second claim rests upon an innuendo stating that the article meant to convey the impression that the plaintiff had funds belonging to an estate which he withheld in a way that would make him guilty of embezzlement and of misconduct as an attorney. In pleading a libel the innuendo can not be employed to distort the published words from the meaning ordinarily given them. In our opinion, no person...