Larrabee v. Minnesota Tribune Co.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1886
• Citation: 36 Minn. 141
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: FRANK D. LARRABEE <I>vs.</I> MINNESOTA TRIBUNE COMPANY.

Page 141

36 Minn. 141

FRANK D. LARRABEEvs.

MINNESOTA TRIBUNE COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 6, 1886.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Clay county, Collins, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $1,250 for plaintiff.

Miller, Young & Miller, for appellant.

M. A. Spooner, Stone & Newman, Wilson, Ball & Wallin, and F. D. Larrabee, for respondent.

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 libellous. The case is argued here, as it appears to have been tried below, on the first article. This is clearly libellous 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, wilfully 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 offence. The neglect by a county attorney, from such a motive, of the duties of his office, would be a grave offence, 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 libellous 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., 34 Minn. 342, (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 imputation. Of the articles in question two do refer to the same matter as the first article in the complaint, and make in substance the same imputation, to wit, culpable neglect of official duty. The jury might therefore consider them on the question of actual malice; and, in view of these articles, it might, in estimating the damages, consider "whether the charges were maliciously made and wantonly persisted in;" for it might certainly take into account, not only the fact...