Heller v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.
Citation | 54 S.W. 457,153 Mo. 205 |
Parties | HELLER v. PULITZER PUB. CO. |
Decision Date | 14 November 1899 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; John A. Talty, Judge.
Action by Martin Heller against the Pulitzer Publishing Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Plaintiff in this action sues the defendant for publishing in its paper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, on the 11th of November, 1893, the following: Also, for publishing substantially the same thing in its paper on the 12th of November, 1893. The answer admitted the publications, denied the other allegations of the petition, and affirmatively pleaded that plaintiff had a subcontract for work on the government buildings at Jefferson Barracks, which work was not completed, and that he left St. Louis, owing material men large sums of money for materials used on said work, and notified them that he was going to Australia, when in fact he had no such intention, and further pleaded that the matter complained of was copied from the Carondelet Progress, a reputable newspaper published in the vicinity of the barracks, and was published by defendant as an item of current news, believing it to be true, and without any malice towards plaintiff. Defendant also pleaded that at the plaintiff's request it afterwards published, and gave equal circulation to, the following retraction: The reply averred that his contracts were nearly completed when he left, and his willingness and offer to complete them on his return, and the refusal of the original contractor to permit him to do so; denied that he had gone off with $1,500 belonging to any one else, but averred that said sum was received from the original contractor, and paid to the laborers and mechanics; and further averred that he left because of trouble with his employés about the amount of wages he should pay them, and because they threatened to kill and boycott him. The evidence showed that the charges were partly true, and partly not; that he did not go away with money belonging to any one else, but because of trouble with his employés, but that he did go away owing large sums to the material men; and that suits were pending against him therefor at the time this case was tried in the circuit court. Among others, the defendant asked, and the court refused to give, the following instruction: "The jurors are instructed that the defendant, by the law, is free to publish whatever it wishes to on any subject, but is responsible for all abuse of that liberty; that the court in this case gives such instructions to the jury as it deems proper, but the jury may disregard all such instructions, as they are the judges of both the law and the facts." But instead the court gave the following instruction of its own motion: "The jurors are instructed that the defendant, by the law, is free to publish whatever it wishes to on any subject, but is responsible for all abuse of that liberty; that the court in this case gives such instructions to the jury as it deems proper, but the jurors are not only the sole judges of the weight to be given to the testimony and the facts, but, under the constitution and law of Missouri, you are yourselves the sole judges of the law of libel, — as to whether the alleged libelous publications were in fact libelous." The court, of its own motion, also gave the following instruction: — following this with a definition of each kind, as to which part of the instruction no point is here made. During the argument, defendant's counsel tried to read to the jury an extract from Townshend on Libel and Slander, in connection with one of the points he desired to make. On objection, the court refused to permit it to be done. Plaintiff secured a verdict, and defendant appealed.
F. N. Judson and J. Clarence Taussig, for appellant. J. R. Myers, for respondent.
MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).
Two errors are assigned by defendant: (1) The giving of the mandatory instruction to find for plaintiff; and (2) refusing to allow counsel to read law books to the jury, — and of these in their order:
1. The first error assigned is the giving of a mandatory instruction to the jury to find for the plaintiff, and leaving only to the jury the question of the amount of the damages. Defendant insists that this was error: (1) Because section 14, art. 2, of the bill of rights of our constitution, provides "that no law shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. Globe Printing Co.
......In Merrill v. Post Pub. Co., 197 Mass. 193, 83 N. E. 423, it is said: "A defendant is liable for what is insinuated as ...In Heller v. Pulitzer Publishing Company, 153 Mo. 213. 54 S. W. 459, this court quoted from the opinion of ......
-
Kleinschmidt v. Bell, 38849.
......73, sec. 470; Hagener v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 172 Mo. App. 436, 158 S.W. 54; Warren v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 78 S.W. (2d) l.c. 412. (4) As ...Heller v. Pulitzer Co., 153 Mo. 205; State ex rel. v. Patton, 77 S.W. (2d) 857; Wells v. Wells, 144 Mo. ......
-
State ex rel. Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Coleman
......Furthermore, any right of jury trial was waived. State ex inf. Crowe v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205; American & English Encyc. Law (2 Ed.), 978; State ex rel. v. Bland, 189 Mo. 197; McCloskey v. Publishing Co., 152 Mo. 339; Heller v. Publishing Co., 153 Mo. 205; State ex rel. v. Tibbe Electric Co., 250 Mo. 522; McClung v. Publishing Co., 279 Mo. 370; R.S. 1929, sec. 1869; Bridges v. Superior Court, 94 Pac. (2d) 983; Merrill v. St. Louis, 83 Mo. 244; Kansas City v. Smart, 128 Mo. 272; Kansas City v. Woerishoeffer, 249 Mo. 1; ......
-
Kleinschmidt v. Bell
...... herein. 37 C.J., p. 73, sec. 470; Hagener v. Pulitzer. Pub. Co., 172 Mo.App. 436, 158 S.W. 54; Warren v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 78 S.W.2d l.c. 412. (4) ... an almanac not in evidence is without precedent in. Missouri. Heller v. Pulitzer Co., 153 Mo. 205;. State ex rel. v. Patton, 77 S.W.2d 857; Wells v. Wells, 144 ......