Hawkins v. Globe Printing Co.

• Citation: 10 Mo.App. 174
• Parties: MARIA B. HAWKINS, Respondent, v. GLOBE PRINTING COMPANY, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 05 April 1881
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

10 Mo.App. 174

MARIA B. HAWKINS, Respondent,

v.GLOBE PRINTING COMPANY, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Apr. 5, 1881.

1. The publication of that portion of the testimony, given in court, which is damaging to the reputation of another, is not privileged.

2. The publication of court proceedings is not privileged, unless the account published be a fair, complete, and impartial statement of the facts.

3. Proof that the person from whom the libeller received the statements published, believed them to be true, is not competent in mitigation of damages.

4. Under a plea of justification in a libel suit, the defendant may show palliating circumstances in mitigation of damages.

5. Proof of particular acts is not competent to show general conduct.

6. Appellate courts will not, in a libel suit, reverse, on the ground of excessive damage, except strong circumstances of mitigation appear.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, THAYER, J.

Affirmed.

SAMUEL KNOX, for the appellant: Even though the report is not privileged, it may be shown in mitigation that the report, although not correct, was an honest one, and intended to be a fair account of the transaction.--Towns. on Slan. & L. (3rd ed.), sect. 403; Smith v. Scott, 2 Car. & Kir. 580; East v. Chapman, Moo. & M. 46; Donnelly v. Swain, 2 Phila. Rep. 93 (cited in Towns. on Slan. & L., sect. 409, note 4); Huson v. Dale, 19 Mich. 17, 34, 35. If the publication was a fair account of the whole proceeding before the magistrate, and the statements of the witnesses and parties interested, forming part of or connected with such proceedings, it was privileged, and plaintiff could not recover.-- Barber v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 3 Mo. App. 377, 382. Defendant was entitled to prove all the circumstances connected with and leading to the publication; and also to prove how far the account was correct, if those circumstances tended to show a want of malice.-- Weaver v. Hendrick, 30 Mo. 502.

A. W. MEAD and FORD SMITH, for the respondent: Proof of the general reputation of the plaintiff before the publication is admissible, but not proof of particular acts, or the testimony of a witness as to plaintiff's habits in regard to any particular thing.-- Fitzgerald v. Stewart, 53 Pa. St. 343; Fountain v. West, 23 Iowa, 9; Lamos v. Snell, 6 N. H. 413; Stone v. Varney, 7 Metc. 86. It is no defence in an action of libel to prove that the same charge had been made by others.-- Anthony v. Stephens, 1 Mo. 150; Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 152. The fact that the charge had been previously made by another will not screen the person repeating it, unless he proves that at the time of repeating it he gave the name of the original author.-- Moberly v. Preston, 8 Mo. 462; Johnson v. Dispatch Co., 65 Mo. 539.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by respondent by reason of the following publication in the Globe-Democrat, a newspaper, published in St. Louis by the defendant corporation:--

“A NOVEL ARRANGEMENT.

A singular case was on trial recently before Justice Von Gerichten, in which Mrs. Ella Mahoney sued Mrs. Maria Hawkins for $50, the value of a shawl which was destroyed by the latter. Both parties reside in the vicinity of Twenty-third and Biddle Streets, Mrs. Mahoney living with her husband, and Mrs. Hawkins, who is a widow, keeping a bakery there. It appeared from the testimony and statements of the interested parties, that for some time, the Widow Hawkins had been in the habit of calling at the residence of Mrs. Mahoney in the evening, where she was warmly received by both husband and wife. Beer would be sent for, and after the trio had indulged to an extent that made them hilarious, the widow would retire with Mr. Mahoney, and the wife would pass the night on the sofa. This unnatural arrangement was followed by results naturally to be expected. One night recently, Mrs. Hawkins called as usual; the beer was brought in and the sleeping arrangement was duly carried out. About five o'clock on the following morning, Mrs. Mahoney had sobered up sufficiently to realize her position, and after thinking of the matter for some time, she determined to protest. She therefore ordered the widow to leave the house, and warned her never to come there again if she valued her life. As the weather was cold, Mrs. Hawkins borrowed Mrs. Mahoney's shawl and left the house. On her arrival at home, she was so enraged and mortified at this, to her, remarkable conduct, on the part of Mrs. Mahoney, that she took the borrowed shawl and tore it into ribbons. Mrs. Mahoney called for the shawl within a few days afterwards and was presented with what remained of it, whereupon she determined to appeal to the law. A verdict was rendered in her favor for the full amount claimed.'

The answer denies specifically each allegation of the petition, and then says that the article complained of was written by an employee of defendant, and was based on information received from Justice Von Gerichten, who tried the case referred to in the petition, in which said justice rendered judgment against the present plaintiff for the value of the shawl; that the publication was without malice, as an article of news; that plaintiff is given to drunkenness; that before the publication she came to Mahoney's house at night, under the influence of liquor, would send for more beer until overcome, and thereupon remain in the Mahoney house all night, and that the matters stated in the article as having happened, did happen, as alleged.

On the trial, Mrs. Mahoney and Mrs. Hawkins were both examined. Mrs. Mahoney swore that Mrs. Hawkins undressed and went to bed, on one occasion, in the same bed with Mrs. Mahoney and Mahoney and their children, and spent the night so; and that Mahoney at the time was in the bed with his clothes on, which Mrs. Hawkins asked him to remove. Mrs. Hawkins's statement is, that on this occasion she was called in by Mrs. Mahoney to protect her and her children from Mahoney, who was drunk; that she acted as peacemaker, and persuaded the wife not to have her husband arrested. She admits that she lay down on the bed and slept that night with Mr. and Mrs. Mahoney and their children, but says that she did not undress, and had all her clothes on except her stockings. For defendant a great many witnesses were introduced, who swore that Mrs. Hawkins's character for sobriety was bad; that she had the character in the neighborhood of being a scold, and of indulging in obscene and profane language; and a very large number of witnesses on behalf of plaintiff testified that she was an industrious, hard-working, good-natured woman, who sometimes drank too much, but never to such an extent that she could not attend to business, and that she was not foul-mouthed or profane. It was further shown that she was the widow of a deceased...