Haynes v. Clinton Printing Co.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1897
• Citation: 169 Mass. 512,48 N.E. 275
• Parties: HAYNES v. CLINTON PRINTING CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

169 Mass. 512

48 N.E. 275

HAYNES

v.CLINTON PRINTING CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Nov. 23, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, Worcester county; John H. Hardy, Judge.

Action by Amory S. Haynes against the Clinton Printing Company for libel. From a judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff failing to amend after a demurrer to the declaration was sustained, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. Demurrer overruled.

Jonathan Smith and W.S.B. Hopkins, for plaintiff.

John W. Corcoran, Walter R. Dame, and William B. Sullivan, for defendant.

HOLMES, J.

A libel does not need the categorical certainty of an indictment at common law. An insinuation may be as actionable as a direct statement, and nothing is better settled than that a defendant cannot escape liability merely by putting the insinuation or statement into the mouth of somebody else. Hurley v. Publishing Co., 138 Mass. 334, 336; Stevens v. Hartwell, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 542, 549, 550; Watkin v. Hall, L.R. 3 Q.B. 396; Odgers, Sland. & L. (2d Ed.) 166, 266, 267, 313. The cases cited by the defendant to show that words of mere suspicion are not actionable are cases of slander, and have but a qualified, if any, application to libel. In libel, it is enough, whatever the form, that the manifest tendency of the words is seriously to hurt the plaintiff's reputation, and the point at which words will be held to have that tendency is reached earlier than in slander. Clark v. Binney, 2 Pick. 113, 116; Tillson v. Robbins, 68 Me. 295; King v. Lake, Hardr. 470; Bradley v. Methwyn, 2 Selw.N.P. (11th Ed.) 1046; Thorley v. Lord Kerry, 4 Taunt. 355, 3 Camp. 214.

Bearing these general propositions in mind, we have no doubt that the words used in the articles complained of were libelous. That set out in the sixth and ninth counts is headed “Singular Facts,” and, referring to the death of one William F. Cohen, says of the plaintiff: “Prominent Citizen of Bolton under Suspicion. Said He Had a Motive if He is Ignorant of the Details of Cohen's Death.” “It may be said with assurance that the case will be sensational to a degree. A.S. Haynes [the plaintiff], a prominent citizen, and town clerk of Bolton, it is believed, has fallen under the suspicion of the officers of the law, and, rightly or wrongly, the evidence will tend towards his possible connection with Mr. Cohen's death. It is hardly probablethat the government can go so far as to establish any actual guilt of this person so far as the alleged murder is concerned, but it is said it will be shown that at least one man existed with a motive for the crime, whether or not he committed it.” It then goes on to allege statements or rumors as to the plaintiff's money relations with Cohen, probably also libelous, but unnecessary to state, which, if true in their suggestion, showed a motive, summing them up with the words “a possible case, if not a very strong one, without the evidence of the government.” It ends with the sentence: “There are many who think the government can present no case whatever, as, in the first place, it is doubted if Cohen's death ever can be positively established. So, from the start, the evidence would be wholly circumstantial, and far from conclusive.” It will be seen that, although the defendant does not commit itself fully to the conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of murder, it does allege that he is suspected, and that there are said to be grounds of suspicion, and the article is, at least, open to the interpretation that it was intended in a veiled way to countenance the suspicion. It does not need argument to show that such a publication tends in the gravest way to the injury of the plaintiff's reputation and standing.

Of the article set out in the seventh and eighth counts, it is enough to quote a part. It is headed, “Cohen Case Reviewed,” and begins: “Administrator Larkin sues Amory S. Haynes, of Bolton, for $489; alleges Haynes obtained control of Cohen's money and papers, and refuses to make an accounting.” Further on it continues: “The interesting portion of the case, and one of the portions that has been the darkest,-that concerning the disposal of $489 belonging to Cohen,-will be thoroughly investigated.” Then: “Cohen *** had to have a guardian, and Haynes is supposed to have been a self-appointed one.” Later still...