Louisville Times Co. v. Lancaster

• Decision Date: 08 February 1911
• Parties: LOUISVILLE TIMES CO. v. LANCASTER.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

133 S.W. 1155

142 Ky. 122

LOUISVILLE TIMES CO. v. LANCASTER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 8, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County.

Action by Merritt P. Lancaster against the Louisville Times Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Bennett H. Young and Kimball & Hunter, for appellant.

Allen &amp Duncan, for appellee.

HOBSON C.J.

On January 9, 1907, there was published in the Louisville Times the following communication sent to it by R. L. McClure, its regular correspondent at Lexington:

"Special to the Times. Lexington, Ky. Jan. 9. At a big society function here Mrs. Clara Bell Walsh, of St. Louis, lost a diamond necklace worth several thousand dollars. The loss of the necklace remained a mystery for some time, but has now been solved, and, it is said, a Pinkerton detective was instrumental in learning the details of the affair. The story is that the necklace was taken by a prominent young society man, who pawned portions of it to diamond brokers in several cities, and that it was on this account that the work in tracing it out was so difficult. Recently there was recorded upon the books of the county clerk's office here a mortgage on a house and lot, and it is said that this was done in order to secure money with which to settle for the necklace. The young society man is employed in Cincinnati."

A rumor to this effect and connecting Merritt Lancaster with the charge had been current in Lexington for some days. So when the publication appeared, one of his friends went to Cincinnati where he was and showed it to him. He then came to Lexington, and, in company with three of his friends, had an interview with McClure on the following Sunday. McClure admitted sending the communication and that he referred to Lancaster. The interview at one time threatened to become violent, but, towards its close, a retraction was mentioned. The next morning, Lancaster, with his attorney and the same three friends, had another interview with McClure, which finally resulted in McClure signing a retraction prepared by Lancaster's attorney. Lancaster then inclosed the retraction in one of McClure's envelopes as "Times correspondent," marking it, "Rush this," and mailed it to the Times with the following letter "Lexington, Ky. Jan. 22, 1907. Editor of Louisville Times, Louisville, Ky.--Dear Sir: Inclosed you will find a statement from your Lexington correspondent, R. L. McClure in refutation in full of an article published in your paper on January 9th. Kindly do me the courtesy to publish this immediately, letting it appear in all the editions of your paper, and giving it as wide publicity as the former articles were given. Very truly yours, Merritt P. Lancaster." The manager editor of the Times on getting the papers called up McClure by phone, and was assured by him that he had signed the paper, and that it was agreed if it was published in the Times this should end the matter, and that there would be no further trouble. On this assurance he wrote a heading to the retraction and published it in the Times as requested on January 23, 1907. The heading and retraction are in these words: "Nothing to Warrant the Slightest Suspicion Against Mr. Lancaster. Story Published from Lexington was Without Foundation. The Lexington correspondent of the Times, R. L. McClure, on January 9, 1907, sent to this newspaper a communication relating to the disappearance of a diamond necklace and reciting other alleged connecting circumstances, which he now confesses was untrue and wholly unauthorized. In the news dispatch sent the Times no name was mentioned in connection with the accusation, but in a signed statement received to-day from the aforesaid McClure he confesses that at the time he wrote the articles he had in mind the name of Merritt Lancaster. Mr. McClure further confesses that he was guilty of a great wrong to an innocent gentleman, and requests the publication of his communication. Unquestionably Mr. Lancaster is entitled to the full benefit of this public disclaimer, which appears herewith: 'On the 9th day of January, as the correspondent of the Louisville Times and other papers, I sent to those papers a story, which was published in the Times on that afternoon in the 4 o'clock and the 6 o'clock editions, in which it was stated that Mrs. Clara Bell Walsh, of St. Louis, at a society function, had lost a diamond necklace worth several thousand dollars, that a Pinkerton detective had ferreted out the matter, and that the necklace was said to have been taken by a prominent young society man, who pawned portions of it to diamond brokers in several cities; and I further stated in the same article that there had been recently recorded in the county clerk's office a mortgage for the purpose of raising money on behalf of the young man to settle for the necklace, and that this young society man was employed in Cincinnati. I referred in that article to Mr. Merritt Lancaster, and it was so intended by me at the time it was published. I desire now to state that the story in every detail was without any foundation in fact; that it was published by me without verification, or attempted verification of the facts, and was the statement of an idle gossip, for which there was no foundation of any kind or character, and I desire now publicly to state that there is no single fact upon which even a suspicion of wrong can be raised against Mr. Lancaster. I have examined into the facts, and I find that Mrs. Walsh did not lose a necklace at a society function. Mr. Lancaster was not present at any such function. Mr. Lancaster had no connection of any kind or character with any loss of any...