Lewis v. Daily News Co.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1895 |
| Citation | 32 A. 246,81 Md. 466 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. DAILY NEWS CO. OF CUMBERLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Allegany county.
Trespass on the case for libel by David J. Lewis against the Daily News Company of Cumberland. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the declaration, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued before ROBINSON, C.J., and BRISCOE, BRYAN, PAGE, BOYD FOWLER, and McSHERRY, JJ.
Ferd. Williams and W. C. Devecmon, for appellant.
D. W Sloan, Robt. R. Henderson, and John G. Wilson, for appellee.
This is an action of trespass on the case for libel. The declaration contains three counts. A demurrer to the whole declaration was filed, and, upon being ruled good, judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff then took this appeal. The defendant is the owner, proprietor, and publisher of a newspaper called the "Daily News." The words which are complained of, and which were published by the defendant are as follows: "Mr. davy lewis, proxy for some one in the Sixth district, a member of the Populist Club in this city, before which he has made several talks, who would be an anarchist if he thought it would pay." Meanings are ascribed to these words by the innuendoes employed in the three counts of the narr. The demurrer, of course, admits the publication of the alleged defamatory language by the defendant, its untruthfulness, and the malice which prompted its promulgation; but raises the questions--First, whether the words, as explained by the innuendoes, are actionable and, secondly, whether the innuendoes fairly express the effect and meaning of the published words.
Upon demurrer, it is always the province of the court to determine whether the words charged in the declaration amount in law to libel or slander. Dorsey v. Whipps, 8 Gill, 462; Haines v. Campbell, 74 Md. 158, 21 A. 702; Avirett v. State, 76 Md. 510, 25 A. 676, 987. And it is equally matter of law as to whether an innuendo is good; that is to say, whether it is fairly warranted by the language declared on, when that language is read, either by itself, or in connection with the inducement and colloquium, if there be an inducement and colloquium set forth. Avirett v. State, supra; Solomon v. Lawson, 8 Q. B. 828. But the innuendo cannot enlarge, extend, or add to the sense or effect of the words declared on, or properly impute to them a meaning which the publication, either in itself or taken in connection with the inducement and colloquium, does not warrant or fairly imply. Now, what words are libelous? "It is well settled that any publication which tends to injure one's reputation, and expose him to hatred or contempt, if made without lawful excuse, is libelous." Negley v. Farrow, 60 Md. 175; Snyder v. Fulton, 34 Md. 128; Hagan v. Hendry, 18 Md. 191. Malice in an action of this kind consists in intentionally doing, without justifiable cause, that which is injurious to another; and everything injurious to the character of another is in this action taken to be false, until it is shown by plea to be true. Therefore, every publication injurious to the character is, in law, false and malicious, until the presumption of falsehood is met by plea of the truth, or the presumption of malice is removed by showing a justifiable occasion or motive. 1 Hare & W. Lead. Cas. (Ed. 1857) 116, notes to the case of Steele v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 214.
The words complained of charge that the plaintiff "would be an anarchist if he thought it would pay," and the innuendo defining their import in the first count is "Meaning thereby, and intending to charge, that the plaintiff would, for a money consideration, be an anarchist." The second count, after setting forth a definition of the word "anarchist," explains the meaning of the alleged libelous publication to be that the plaintiff would, for a money consideration, be an anarchist, and engage in the unlawful, treasonable, and felonious designs and acts of anarchists. And the third count avers that the word "anarchist" means a person who, actuated by mere lust of plunder, seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and law and order, and all right of property; and that the words...
To continue reading
Request your trial