Julian v. Kansas City Star Co.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1908
• Citation: 107 S.W. 496,209 Mo. 35
• Parties: HENRY S. JULIAN v. KANSAS CITY STAR COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

107 S.W. 496

209 Mo. 35

HENRY S. JULIAN v. KANSAS CITY STAR COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

January 27, 1908

Appeal from Ray Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. W. Alexander, Judge.

Affirmed.

Isaac N. Watson and Wash Adams for appellant.

(1) The cause of action accrued in Jackson county where both parties resided and the alleged libel was first published. Barnard v. Boulware, 5 Mo. 454; Bankers Life Assn. v. Shelton, 84 Mo.App. 638; Tomans v Smith, 153 N.Y. 214; Railroad v. O'Bryan, 112 Ga. 130; Ithaca Fire Dept. v. Beecher, 99 N.Y 429; Bruill v. Ins. Co., 72 Wis. 430; Tupp v Morin, 25 Abb. N. C. 399; Harvey v. Ins. Co., 37 W.Va. 281; Chevrier v. Robert, 6 Mont. 319; Anglo-Am. D. Co. v. Lombard, 132 F. 749. (2) All the copies of one newspaper containing a libel constitute one publication and a fortiori give rise to but one cause of action. 3 Sutherland on Damages, 648; Bigelow v Sprague, 140 Mass. 427; Leonard v. Pope, 27 Mich. 149; Root v. Loundes, 6 Hill 518; Enos v Enos, 135 N.Y. 611; Townshend on Slander & Libel (4 Ed.), p. 561; Newell on Slander & Libel (2 Ed.), 877; Lewis v. Daniels, 82 Mo. 577; Pennington v. Meeks, 46 Mo. 217. (3) A cause of action cannot be split up and asserted in several suits. Mateer v. Railroad, 105 Mo. 320; Wagoner v. Jacoby, 26 Mo. 532; Bank v. Tracy, 141 Mo. 252. (4) A general appearance (e. g., application for change of venue) entered after a plea to the jurisdiction has been filed, does not waive the plea. Meyer v. Ins. Co., 184 Mo. 481. This is also true of the continuance made by order of the court "by agreement of all parties." Higgins v. Beckwith, 102 Mo. 456. The plea to the jurisdiction was then pending and the court had ordered the case continued to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the prohibition case, and of the acceptance by counsel for defendant of notice to take depositions. The plea to the jurisdiction was then pending and the taking of the depositions was by the court prohibited. Signing this stipulation was no waiver. Bentz v. Eubanks, 32 Kan. 321; Smith v. Simpson, 80 Mo. 634. (5) It is only where the defendant pleads to the merits in the first instance without questioning the jurisdiction that objection is waived. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476. (6) There can be no waiver, because the question of jurisdiction here is one of subject-matter. The statute, section 997, is mandatory. Wheelock v. Lee, 74 N.Y. 495; Davidburg v. Ins. Co., 90 N.Y. 526; Haywood v. Johnson, 41 Mich. 598; Bocken v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 492; Konold v. Railroad, 16 Utah 160; Graham v. Railroad, 64 N.C. 631; McMaster v. Advance Thresher Co., 10 Wash. 147; Smith v. Simpson, 80 Mo. 634. (7) In actions for libel witnesses can not rightly be permitted to testify as to the meaning they put upon the alleged libelous words. Newell on Slander & Libel (2 Ed.), pp. 308-318; Callahan v. Ingram, 122 Mo. 355; Railroad v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. St. 554; Rangler v. Hummel, 37 Pa. St. (1 Wright) 133; Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co., 37 Minn. 277; White v. Sayward, 33 Me. 322; Republican Pub. Co. v. Miner, 12 Colo. 85; Snell v. Snow, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 278; Pitts v. Pace, 7 Jones L. (52 N. C.) 558; Sasser v. Rouse, 13 Ired. (Law) 142; Townshend, Slander & Libel (4 Ed.), sec. 384, p. 639; Olmstead v. Miller, 1 Wend. 510; Weed v. Bibbins, 32 Barb. 315; Justice v. Kirlin, 17 Ind. 588; Dedway v. Powell, 4 Ky. 77; Gibson v. Williams, 4 Wend. 320; Van Vecten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 211; Maynard v. Beardsly, 7 Wend. 561; Wright v. Paige, 36 Barb. 438; Anderson v. Hart, 68 Ia. 400; Harrison v. Bevington, 8 Car. & P. 708; Jornigan v. Fleming, 43 Miss. 720; Beardsly v. Maynard, 4 Wend. 336; Kidd v. Fleek, 47 Wis. 443; McCue v. Ferguson, 73 Pa. St. 333; People v. McDowell, 71 Cal. 194; 3 Wigmore, Ev., pp. 2614-15; Hearne v. DeYoung, 119 Cal. 670; Quinn v. Ins. Co., 90 N.W. 349; Craig v. Buris, 55 A. 353; Stokes v. Morn. Jour. Asn., 73 N.Y.S. 245, 66 A.D. 567; Hacker v. Heiney, 111 Wis. 313; Butler v. Barrett, 130 F. 944. (8) Whether the language is fairly susceptible of the innuendo applied to it, is a question for the court and not the jury to decide. Webb's Pollock on Torts, p. 314; Townshend on Slander & Libel (4 Ed.), p. 576; Lewis v. Daily News Co., 81 Md. 472; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 373; Ukman v. Daily Record, 189 Mo. 378; Bundy v. Hart, 46 Mo. 464; Hudson v. Garner, 22 Mo. 426; Walker v. Trib. Co., 29 F. 827; Gompertz v. Levy, 1 Perr & Dav. 214; Railroad v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. St. 554; Jones v. Roberts, 73 Vt. 201 (50 A. 1071); Goldstein v. Frost, 6 B. & Cr. 154; Yrisarri v. Clement, 3 Bing. 432; Schurick v. Kollman, 50 Ind. 336; Kilgour v. Evening Star, 96 Md. 16; Hamilton v. Lowry, 71 N.E. 54; Parker v. Bennett, 74 N.Y.S. 214; Nonpariel Cork Co. v. Keasby, 108 F. 721; Dun v. Maier, 82 F. 169; Harrison v. Findley, 23 Ind. 265; Ratzel v. N. Y. News Pub. Co., 73 N.Y.S. 849; Williams v. McKee, 98 Tenn. 139; Robertson v. Edelstein, 104 Wis. 443; Hilder v. Brooklyn Eagle, 91 N.Y.S. 983; Van Vacter v. Walkup, 46 Cal. 134; Herrick v. Tribune Co., 108 Ill.App. 244; Morrison v. Smith, 82 N.Y.S. 166, 83 A.D. 206; Bradley v. Cramer, 59 Wis. 309; Cunningham v. Underwood, 116 F. 807; Richardson v. Thorpe, 63 A. 580. (9) The language, "Julian is remembered here as a member of the Legislature, who did well in a legislative way," is incapable of the innuendo ascribed to it, viz., that "plaintiff had earned the reputation of taking bribes," etc. The use of the adversative conjunction "but" demonstrates this. The lower court erred in submitting this incompetent innuendo to the jury and in refusing defendant's refused instruction 12, that the language is incapable of such innuendo. 1 Cent. Dict., 735, title "But;" Webster's Dict., title "But;" Hamilton v. Fautl, 95 N.W. 955; Railroad v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. St. 554; Hilder v. Brooklyn Eagle, 45 Misc. 165; Daily v. Eng. & Min. Journal, 88 N.Y.S. 6, 94 App. 314; Herringer v. Ingbery, 97 N.W. 460; Moss v. Harwood, 46 S.E. 385; Reporter's Assn. v. Sun Pr. & Pub. Co., 98 N.Y.S. 294; Rees v. N. Y. Herald, 98 N.Y.S. 548; State v. O'Hagan, 63 A. 95; Witham v. Atlanta Journal, 53 S.E. 105; State v. Conklin, 84 Pa. 482; Newell on Slander & Libel (2 Ed.), p. 620; Parker v. Bennett, 74 N.Y.S. 214, 68 A.D. 148; Ratzel v. N. Y. News Pub. Co., 73 N.Y.S. 849, 67 A.D. 598; Martin v. Press Co., 83 N.Y.S. 119; Jones v. Roberts, 73 Vt. 201, 50 A. 1071; Robertson v. Edelstein, 104 Wis. 443; Cole v. Neustadter, 22 Oregon 201; Pythian v. Paison, 92 S.W. 591. (10) The petition does not count upon the language as libelous per se, but avers specific innuendoes only. In such case the plaintiff is not entitled to a verdict upon the article as libelous, without the innuendoes. "Where plaintiff in libel wishes to fall back on the natural meaning of the words published, his complaint should set forth in one count the article with the innuendoes and in the other the article without the innuendoes." Hilder v. Brooklyn Eagle, 91 N.Y.S. 983, 45 Misc. 165; Herrick v. Tribune Co., 108 Ill.App. 244; Martin v. Press Pub. Co., 83 N.Y.S. 119 (40 Misc. 524); Wuest v. Brooklyn Citz., 76 N.Y.S. 706; Smid v. Bernard, 63 N.Y.S. 278; Westbrook v. N. Y. Sun Assn., 65 N.Y.S. 399; Brown v. Tribune Assn., 77 N.Y.S. 461, 74 A.D. 359; Morrison v. Smith, 83 A.D. 206; Leary v. Barnett, 65 Wis. 554; Quinn v. Ins. Co., 90 N.W. 349; Sillars v. Collier, 151 Mass. 50; Hamilton v. Lowery, 71 N.E. 54. (11) Evidence that plaintiff's friends avoided him, without proof of the occasion of such change of attitude, is inadmissible. Kersting v. White, 107 Mo.App. 265; Freedman v. Pullitzer Pub. Co., 102 Mo.App. 683. (12) The publications by defendant five years before criticising the appointment of plaintiff as Major of the 5th Missouri volunteers, were not admissible because they did not concern the same subject-matter as the article complained of in this action. Distin v. Rose, 69 N.Y. 124; Larrabee v. Minn. Trib. Co., 36 Minn. 141; Jacobs v. Cater, 87 Minn. 448; Kennedy v. Gifford, 19 Wend. 297; Howard v. Sexton, 4 N.Y. 157; Upton v. Hume, 24 Ore. 420; Schenck v. Schenck, 20 N. J. L. 208; Wigmore's Ev., p. 499, sec. 404; U. S. v. Brandell, 4 Cr. (C. C.) 683; Fredrickson v. Johnson, 60 Minn. 337; Bodwell v. Swan, 3 Pick. 376; Watson v. Moore, 2 Cush. 133, 63 L. R. A. 444; Cassidy v. Brooklyn Eagle, 138 N.Y. 242; Stuart v. Herald, 73 A.D. 459; Keenholts v. Becker, 3 Denio 346; Root v. Lowndes, 6 Hill 518; Maynard v. Beardsly, 7 Wend. 560; Jacobs v. Carter, 87 Minn. 448; Townshend on Slander & Libel, sec. 392; Leonard v. Pope, 27 Mich. 145; Frazier v. McClosky, 60 N.Y. 337; Taylor v. Kneeland, 1 Doug. 67; Russy v. Farrell, 102 Tenn. 248; Comw. v. Harmon, 2 Gray 289; Stern v. Loewenthal, 77 Cal. 341; Westerfield v. Scrapps, 119 Cal. 607; Mix v. Woodward, 12 Conn. 262; Conant v. Leslie, 85 Me. 257; Gambrill v. Schooley, 95 Md. 260; Russell v. Farrell, 102 Tenn. 248, 63 L. R. A. 444. (13) Where there is any evidence tending to support any defense pleaded, the jury should be permitted to pass upon it. It was therefore error to instruct the jury that the justification pleaded in defendant's answer has not been established by the evidence. Morse v. Maddox, 19 Mo. 451; Houghlating v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84; Emerson v. Sturgeon, 18 Mo. 170; Rippey v. Friede, 26 Mo. 523; Benton v. Klein, 42 Mo. 97; McFarland v. Bellows, 49 Mo. 311; Yates v. Brookanside, 27 Mo. 531; Husten v. Tyler, 140 Mo. 267; Huber v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 153 Mo. 205. (14) The testimony of H. S. Julian and Frank M. Lowe, taken before the Senate committee, upon which the editorial in the Star, put in evidence by plaintiff, entitled, "Two Different Stories," was based, should have been admitted because it explains the motive and tends to disprove malice and tends to prove the truth of the editorial. Dalton v. Gill, 25 Hun 120; Reily v. Tinne...