Larrabee v. Minn. Tribune Co.

Decision Date06 December 1886
Citation36 Minn. 141,30 N.W. 462
PartiesLARRABEE v MINNESOTA TRIBUNE CO.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A printed publication charging a public officer with culpable neglect of his official duties is libelous per se.1

To show actual malice, other libelous publications by the defendant, containing substantially the same imputation against the plaintiff as the article sued on, are admissible.

Where, in an action for libel, several other publications by defendant, some admissible to show actual malice, others not, were given in evidence without objection, the attention of the trial court not being called to the difference, and the court charged the jury, in general terms, that it might consider the publications in evidence on the question of malice, an exception which does not call attention to the difference is too general.

Where the libel charged culpable neglect by a public officer of official duty, evidence, in mitigation of damage, that it was the general opinion and common talk of the community that the officer was guilty of such neglect of duty, unless it had come to the knowledge of and was believed in and relied on by defendant in making the publication, is not admissible.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Clay county.

Marshall A. Spooner, for respondent, Larrabee.

Miller, Young & Miller, for appellant, Minnesota Tribune Co.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Action for libel. The complaint sets forth two articles published by defendant in its newspaper, the Minneapolis Daily Tribune, one on May 26, 1883, and one on May 29, 1883, each of which the complaint claims to be libelous. The case is argued here, as it appears to have been tried below, on the first article. This is clearly libelous per se. No one could read it without understanding from it that the plaintiff had, from an improper motive, to-wit, “purely out of political fear,” as stated in the article, willfully neglected the duties of his office (that of county attorney of Clay county) in failing to prosecute a certain person suspected of having committed a criminal offense. The neglect by a county attorney, from such a motive, of the duties of his office, would be a grave offense, for which he might be removed from office. Gen. St. 1878, c. 9, § 3.

At the trial, three other articles, published in the same paper, were introduced without objection, one published June 1, 1883, the other two after this action was commenced, on July 4th and 5th, respectively. The first two of these were of a libelous character. The first of them clearly refers to the same matter referred to in the first article set out in the complaint, and imports that the report of the matter given in that article is true. The second one set forth in the complaint is also upon the same matter. The court below instructed the jury that they might consider these articles for the purpose only of showing actual malice on the part of defendant towards the plaintiff in publishing the first article set out in the complaint. This is assigned as error.

In Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co., 25 N. W. Rep. 710, it was held that, in an action for libel, in order to prove actual malice, other publications by the defendant, containing substantially the same imputation as that sued upon, whether before or after the latter, or after suit brought upon it, are competent and admissible as evidence. To make such other publications competent they need not be repetitions of the one sued upon, nor in the same terms, if they refer to the same matter, and make substantially the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • United States v. Toledo Newspaper Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • January 23, 1915
    ... ... 201 (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals); ... Van Derveer v. Sutphin, 5 Ohio St. 293; Larrabee ... v. Tribune Co., 36 Minn. 141, 30 N.W. 462; ... Commonwealth v. Damon, 136 Mass. 441; Enos ... ...
  • Tawney v. Simonson, Whitcomb & Hurley Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1909
    ... 124 N.W. 229 109 Minn. 341 JAMES R. TAWNEY v. SIMONSON, WHITCOMB & HURLEY COMPANY Nos. 16,298 - (104) Supreme Court ... damages for libel published in The Evening Tribune, a ... newspaper published in the city of Albert Lea, and generally ... circulated within that ... him of his office is libelous per se. Larrabee v ... Minnesota Tribune Co., 36 Minn. 141; Sharpe v ... Larson, 67 Minn. 428; Martin v ... ...
  • Lauder v. Jones
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1904
    ... ... Newell on Slander & Libel, 281; Wesley v. Bennett, 5 Abb. Prac. 498; Patch v. Tribune Co., 38 Hun, 368; Rundell v. Butler, 7 Barb. 260;Sanderson v. Caldwell, 45 N. Y. 398, 6 Am. Rep ... Y. 64;Atkinson v. Detroit Free Press, 46 Mich. 374, 9 N. W. 501;Blakeman v. Blakeman, 31 Minn. 398, 18 N. W. 103;Thompson v. Powning, 15 Nev. 212;State v. Spear, 13 R. I. 327;Dexter v. Taber, ... 116;Kennedy v. Gifford, 19 Wend. 295;Thomas v. Croswell, 7 Johns. 264, 5 Am. Dec. 269;Larrabee v. Tribune Co., 36 Minn. 141, 30 N. W. 462;Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co., 34 Minn. 342, 25 N. W ... ...
  • Tawney v. Simonson, Whitcomb & Hurley Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1909
    ...109 Minn. 341124 N.W. 229TAWNEYv.SIMONSON, WHITCOMB & HURLEY CO.Supreme Court of Minnesota.Dec. 31, 1909 ... State v. Norton, 123 N. W. 59;Larrabee v. Tribune Co., 36 Minn. 141, 30 N. W. 462;Sharpe v. Larson, 67 Minn. 428, 70 N. W. 1, 554;Martin ... ...
  • 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