Jean v. Hennessy

• Citation: 69 Iowa 373,28 N.W. 645
• Parties: JEAN v. HENNESSY.
• Decision Date: 23 June 1886
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

69 Iowa 373

28 N.W. 645

JEAN

v.HENNESSY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 23, 1886.

Appeal from Jackson district court.

The petition in this cause contains three counts: one for slander, one for libel, and one for malicious prosecution. The defendant demurred to the petition. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff appeals.J. H. Flint, for appellant.

W. J. Knight and William Graham, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. One ground of demurrer is that the causes of action set up in the petition are barred by the statute of limitations. As we think that the appeal must be disposed of on this ground, the other points in the demurrer need not be considered; and, as counsel for plaintiff concedes that the demurrer was correctly sustained as to the cause of action for an alleged malicious prosecution, that part of the case requires no further consideration.

2. It appears from the averments of the petition that the defendant is now, and has been for many years, Catholic bishop of the diocese of Dubuque, and that, prior to the year 1872, the plaintiff was a regularly ordained Catholic priest in said diocese; and that, while located and officiating as such priest at the city of Lyons, he was, in the year 1872, by the order of the defendant, suspended from exercising the functions of a priest. It is averred that said suspension was without just or legal cause, and that the order was made by the defendant willfully and maliciously, and it is charged in the petition that in the month of October, 1880, the defendant said and spoke of and concerning the plaintiff that he, the plaintiff, “had not the right to say mass, or words to that effect; meaning that this plaintiff was not a Catholic priest; that by some misconduct or crime the plaintiff had lost the right to say mass or officiate as a Catholic priest.” It is averred that these words were false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory. It is further stated in the petition that on many other occasions, from 1872 up to the filing of the petition, the defendant falsely and maliciously declared that the plaintiff had not the right to say mass or officiate as a Catholic priest, and that the defendant said to one Luchersmann that he (Luchersmann) “had committed a wrongful act in admitting the plaintiff into his company,” and that some time in the year 1882 the defendant said to Hon. W. J. Knight that this plaintiff was “condemned.”

An action for slander or libel is barred, by the statute of limitations, in two years. Code, § 2529. It is conceded in argument that this action, so far as it is affected by the statute of limitations, was commenced on May 30, 1885. It is apparent that more than two years elapsed after the cause of action accrued, and before the suit was commenced. But it is claimed, in behalf of the plaintiff, that, because it is stated in the petition that the alleged slanderous words were repeated at different times up to the time of the filing of the petition, ...