Kimm v. Steketee
| Citation | 48 Mich. 322,12 N.W. 177 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1882 |
| Parties | KIMM and another v. STEKETEE. |
An article in print, which not only depreciates a tradesman's wares, but charges him with counterfeiting genuine articles and their labels, is libellous.
Where a libellous article was circulated in a foreign language it is not necessary to show that it was understood, nor that those conversant with such language were citizens.
In an action for libel it is not improper for the court to inform the jury of the amount of damages which would carry costs.
Error to Kent.
Loomis A. Miller, for plaintiffs in error.
Kennedy & Thompson, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff who is a druggist in Grand Rapids, sued defendants for a libel published in the Dutch language in a newspaper having a large circulation among the Hollanders in that part of the state, and recovered damages. Defendants set up several errors which, so far as material, will be considered. The libel consisted of an article asserting that plaintiff sold what he claimed to be genuine Netherlands Haarlem Oil, and that defendants doubting it had sent one of his labels to Haarlem, and received from the rector of the gymnasium there a letter, which is given at length, stating that a consignment of genuine oil was on its way to them, and that the label which they sent to him was not genuine and was probably printed in America. They then went on to make some comments on the genuineness of the oil sold by plaintiff, warning buyers from dealing with any but themselves, and added a letter from one of the two manufacturing houses in Haarlem stating that the label did not come from that establishment, and charging that Steketee had at one time sold genuine oil and had caused the oil and wrappers to be counterfeited and then sold the spurious article a genuine.
Defendants pleaded the general issue and gave notice of justification and also in mitigation. On the trial the jury did not find the justification made out. The mitigating testimony was allowed and evidently had weight in reducing the damages. After proof of the publication of the libel and of the circulation of the paper, plaintiff proved an immediate falling off in his trade and particularly in his sales of the oil. He testified among other things that one Gruther, a merchant at Grandville, to whom he had sold at wholesale returned it and said his customers would not buy it after they had read defendant's advertisement. He also gave further evidence of similar complaints from customers not named. The defendants allege as error the particular case of Gruther, as a specimen of the class, and objected that he should have been sworn himself.
We do not think the objection well taken. The effect of such a libel on a man's trade cannot always be traced to the individuals who deal with him. If he were compelled to show who failed to do so, it would be manifestly impossible. If the trade suddenly falls away it will usually be shown--not by customers coming to complain, but by their not coming at all. And if a customer comes to return an article previously bought, that fact is itself significant and his reasons given are a part of the transaction which cannot be regarded as a mere matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial