Kansas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 1,447.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
Citation108 F. 344
Decision Date29 March 1901
PartiesKANSAS CITY STAR CO. v. CARLISLE.
Docket Number1,447.

108 F. 344

KANSAS CITY STAR CO.
v.
CARLISLE.

No. 1,447.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 29, 1901


[108 F. 345]

This is an action of libel, which was brought by Harold Carlisle, the defendant in error, against the Kansas City Star Company, the plaintiff in error. The libel complained of was published in the Kansas City Star, a daily newspaper published by the defendant company, in its issue of February 20, 1897; [108 F. 346] the entire article being as follows (those portions of the article which were complained of as libelous are indicated by italics):

'Arrested as a Thief
'Harold Carlisle, a Main Street Merchant, under a Cloud-- Said to have been a Member of a Band of Cattle Thieves-- To be Taken to Colorado Tomorrow to be Prosecuted-- Had a Denver Office.
'Harold Carlisle, of the firm of Carlisle, Peters & Co., dealers in furnishing goods at 818 Main street, was arrested this morning at his home, in Westport, by Detective O'Hare and Sheriff John D. Reeder, of Mesa county, Colorado, charged with receiving eight head of cattle stolen from the Utah Cattle Company's ranch in Mesa county. Sheriff Reeder has secured requisition papers for Carlisle, and will start for Colorado to-morrow morning with his man. Before Carlisle engaged in the furnishing goods business in this city, four years ago, he was a stock dealer in Colorado, in which state he is well known. Although doing business in this city, he has spent most of his time in Denver and other Colorado cities. His family live at 205 Woodworth avenue, Westport. Carlisle's arrest is the outcome of the capture of Frank White, a noted Colorado cattle thief. He is now in jail at Grand Junction, Colo., and has confessed to shipping cattle to Carlisle, who has a cattle office in Denver. The eight head of cattle with which Carlisle is charged with receiving were stolen last June by White from the Utah Cattle Company's ranch in Mesa county. They were shipped to Carlisle at Dallas, Colo., where they were seized by Sheriff Reeder. Shortly after that sixty more head of stolen cattle, consigned to Carlisle at Denver, were seized by the sheriff. Reeder says Carlisle was not arrested at that time because the authorities did not have sufficient evidence to show that he knew the cattle had been stolen. Reeder says that now he has conclusive evidence that Carlisle was a member of the gang of cattle thieves which has been operating extensively in the western part of the state of Colorado; that he acted as agent for the thieves in disposing of their stolen stock. Carlisle had nothing to say about the charge, and refused to discuss the matter with the officer. He is an Englishman of medium size, with dark hair, and wears gold-rimmed glasses.'

The defendant admitted the publication of the article aforesaid, and filed a plea justifying the publication, the material parts of which plea were as follows:

'Defendant says: That on or about the months of April, May, and June, 1896, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff, Harold Carlisle, one William E. Gordon, and others were engaged in conspiracy, and were members of a band of cattle thieves organized for the purpose of rustling (that is, stealing cattle) in the states of Colorado and Utah, or at such place or places as such larceny might be perpetrated. That the part performed in said conspiracy by plaintiff was to guide and direct the same, as a rule, from a distance; to take no hand in the actual rustling of cattle, but to only receive and sell the same, and by standing ostensibly aloof, and maintaining as far as possible a seemingly honest bearing amongst certain business men and cattle buyers, be thereby the better enabled to get said stolen cattle past the inspectors and others, and convert them into money. That the part performed by said William E. was to act as a go-between between said cattle rustlers and the plaintiff; to immediately control said rustlers in the larceny of cattle, or to purchase cattle from outsiders knowing them to have been stolen; and, having collected said stolen cattle, to deliver them to plaintiff at some designated place, or to so mingle said stolen cattle with others honestly acquired, and so mutilate the brands on said stolen cattle, as to elude discovery. That the other conspirators above referred to were men employed by plaintiff and said Gordon in and about the ranch and range of said plaintiff and said gordon, and who, in connection with their other duties, rustled cattle for their employers as opportunity presented, or they were men, who, while not regularly employed at said ranch, were cattle thieves, and became a part of said conspiracy, and stole and sold cattle to said Gordon. And defendant says that one E. Frank White and one Edward Young, hereinafter mentioned, became parties to said conspiracy on or about April, May, or June, 1896, or [108 F. 347] prior thereto; that the ranch of plaintiff and said Gordon, who was the foreman thereof, was located in the Blue Mountains of Utah, a most suitable place for the furtherance of said conspiracy; that plaintiff and said Gordon employed at said ranch desperate and dishonest men, who bore the reputation of being desperate and dishonest, and who were known to plaintiff and said Gordon to be cattle rustlers and thieves, and who were employed in furtherance of the conspiracy and common enterprise aforesaid. Defendant states that in pursuance of said conspiracy, and as a part of the common enterprise, one E. Frank White and one Edward Young, who joined in said conspiracy about the spring of 1896, or prior thereto, and who were cattle thieves, and reputed to be such, and known to plaintiff and Gordon as such, at the county of Mesa, in the state of Colorado, in the spring of 1896, eight head of neat cattle, to wit, eight steers, of the aggregate value of two hundred dollars, of the personal property of the Utah Colorado Cattle & Improvement Company, a corporation organized according to law, feloniously took, stole, and carried away; and defendant alleges that at or near the county of San Juan, in the state of Utah, in the spring of 1896, plaintiff, Harold Carlisle, and said William E. Gordon, the said eight head of cattle, to wit, eight steers, of the aggregate value of two hundred dollars, of the property of the Utah Colorado Cattle & Improvement Company, a corporation organized according to law, the said cattle having been then lately before feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away as aforesaid, feloniously did buy and receive; they, the said Carlisle and Gordon, then and there well knowing the said cattle to have been feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away as aforesaid. Defendant alleges that at or near the county of San Juan, in the state of Utah, on or about the spring of 1896, the plaintiff, Harold Carlisle, and William E. Gordon, other neat cattle, to the number of thirty or more, and of the aggregate value of over six hundred dollars, being the property of certain persons and corporations, said cattle having been then lately before feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, feloniously did buy and receive; they, the said Harold Carlisle and William E. Gordon, then and there well knowing the said property to have been feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away as aforesaid. Defendant says that all the stolen cattle above referred to, to the number of about forty or more, were about the month of May, 1896, driven by said Gordon from said ranch in Utah to Ridgeway and Dallas, Colorado, and there, while in the possession of said Carlisle and Gordon, some nineteen head or more of said stolen cattle were cut out and taken away by one Thomas Mostyn, at the suggestion of John D. Reeder, sheriff of Mesa county, Colorado, and delivered by him to the owners thereof. The other cattle then in the possession of Carlisle and Gordon, to the number of about five hundred or more, and including the remaining stolen cattle above referred to, were shipped by plaintiff from Dallas, Colorado, to Denver, Colorado, at which last place some twenty-seven head or more (being the stolen cattle above referred to) were cut out by Charles Hartman and James Talbot, state cattle inspectors of Colorado, and sold, and the proceeds went to the owners. After the cattle above referred to were so stolen and retaken and restored to the owners, on or about October 6, 1896, four informations were filed by Lyman I. Henry, then district and prosecuting attorney of Mesa county, Colorado, in the district court of that county, charging said E. Frank White with stealing certain of said cattle. On October 15, 1896, said Lyman I. Henry, district attorney, filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of said Mesa county the affidavit of S. P. Chipman, charging plaintiff and said Gordon with receiving eight head of cattle of the Utah Colorado Cattle & Improvement Company, knowing them to have been stolen, and thereupon, on October 16, 1896, said Henry filed an information in said district court of said Mesa county, based on said affidavit, and charging said Carlisle and Gordon with receiving said eight head of cattle, knowing they were stolen. Said White pleaded guilty to the charge against him, and was sentenced to the penitentiary of Colorado for four years; but said prosecuting attorney, within a few days after plaintiff was taken to Colorado for trial, dismissed the information against said Carlisle and Gordon, and the same was never tried on the merits. Defendant says that, prior to the time it had published in its evening paper the words above alleged by plaintiff to be libelous, it was true that plaintiff had 'had [108 F. 348] nothing to say about the charge, and refused to discuss the matter with the officers. ' Wherefore defendant
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, 2,600.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 26, 1909
    ...Co., 107 F. 881, 884, 47 C.C.A. 34, 36; Sauntry v. United States, 117 F. 132, 135, 55 C.C.A. 148, 151; Kansas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 108 F. 344, 364, 47 C.C.A. 384, 404), and it adheres to the conclusion that the true rules and the reasons for them are stated in Resurrection Gold Mining......
  • Trask v. Davis, No. 7513
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 26, 1957
    ...S.W.2d 555; Stephens v. Fowlkes, 338 Mo. 527, 92 S.W.2d 617, 620, and cases cited; see Kansas City Star Publishing Co. v. Carlisle, 8 Cir., 108 F. 344, 360; see In re Thomasson's Estate, 347 Mo. 748, 148 S.W.2d 757; Hoelmer v. Heiskell, 359 Mo. 236, 221 S.W.2d 142; Hannibal & St. Joseph Ry.......
  • Salinger v. Cowles, 34089
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 15, 1922
    ...(53 A. 1028); Dowie v. Priddle, 216 Ill. 553 (75 N.E. 243); Amos v. Stockert, 47 W.Va. 109 (34 S.E. 821); Kansas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 108 F. 344; McClintock v. Crick, 4 Iowa 453. For example, if it is published of one that he is a murderer or a thief or a perjurer or a swindler, it is......
  • Newgold v. American Electrical Novelty & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 17, 1901
    ...657, 667, 13 Sup.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123. The grounds of the decision were that section 4966 describes the recovery as 'damages' for the [108 F. 344.] private wrong alone, and it is not called a penalty or a forfeiture; and because the recovery inures wholly to the person injured. Qui tam ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, 2,600.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 26, 1909
    ...Co., 107 F. 881, 884, 47 C.C.A. 34, 36; Sauntry v. United States, 117 F. 132, 135, 55 C.C.A. 148, 151; Kansas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 108 F. 344, 364, 47 C.C.A. 384, 404), and it adheres to the conclusion that the true rules and the reasons for them are stated in Resurrection Gold Mining......
  • Trask v. Davis, No. 7513
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 26, 1957
    ...S.W.2d 555; Stephens v. Fowlkes, 338 Mo. 527, 92 S.W.2d 617, 620, and cases cited; see Kansas City Star Publishing Co. v. Carlisle, 8 Cir., 108 F. 344, 360; see In re Thomasson's Estate, 347 Mo. 748, 148 S.W.2d 757; Hoelmer v. Heiskell, 359 Mo. 236, 221 S.W.2d 142; Hannibal & St. Joseph Ry.......
  • Salinger v. Cowles, 34089
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 15, 1922
    ...(53 A. 1028); Dowie v. Priddle, 216 Ill. 553 (75 N.E. 243); Amos v. Stockert, 47 W.Va. 109 (34 S.E. 821); Kansas City Star Co. v. Carlisle, 108 F. 344; McClintock v. Crick, 4 Iowa 453. For example, if it is published of one that he is a murderer or a thief or a perjurer or a swindler, it is......
  • Newgold v. American Electrical Novelty & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 17, 1901
    ...657, 667, 13 Sup.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed. 1123. The grounds of the decision were that section 4966 describes the recovery as 'damages' for the [108 F. 344.] private wrong alone, and it is not called a penalty or a forfeiture; and because the recovery inures wholly to the person injured. Qui tam ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT