Lyman v. New England Newspaper Pub. Co.

• Citation: 190 N.E. 542,286 Mass. 258
• Parties: LYMAN v. NEW ENGLAND NEWSPAPER PUB. CO. (two cases).
• Decision Date: 25 May 1934
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

286 Mass. 258

190 N.E. 542

LYMAN

v.NEW ENGLAND NEWSPAPER PUB. CO. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1934.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Dillon, Judge.

Separate actions by Charles Frederick Lyman, Jr., and by Elizabeth Mackubin Lyman against the New England Newspaper Publishing Company. From an order in each case sustaining a demurrer to the declaration, plaintiffs appeal.

Order in each case reversed.

C. G. Smith, Jr., of Boston, for appellants.

B. C. Perkins, of Boston, for appellee.

RUGG, Chief Justice.

These are two actions for libel. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. Save as to names, the declarations are substantially identical except that there is an allegation of special damages in that of the husband. Each declaration states the name and residence of the plaintiff and the marriage existing between the two plaintiffs. The declarations state that the defendant is a corporation which publishes and circulates throughout the Commonwealth a newspaper which usually contains, among other matters, a column of tattle under the caption “beacon hill' by Betty Alden'; that on July 19, 1933, the defendant falsely and maliciously printed and published of the plaintiffs in said column, the words following: ‘Marblehead is a wonderful spot in which to spend a summer. * * * There is always something to do, sailing, motoring, antique hunting, bathing and let us not forget gossiping. * * * We hadn't been down there 10 minutes when a sudden breeze brought us the news of a ‘rift in the lute’ of the Freddie Lymans but by this time that may not mean a thing * * *'; that the phrase ‘rift in the lute’ is an adaptation frequently employed and well understood from the lines in Tennyson's ‘Idylls of the King’:

‘It is the little rift within the lute

That by and by will make the music mute

And ever widening slowly silence all'; that the defendant meant by said publication that a breach had occurred in the plaintiffs' marital relations, which would naturally and in due course lead to a divorce or legal separation; that in truth, the plaintiffs were strongly attached to each other and there was no basis for the defendant's calumny aforesaid; that by reason of said publication the plaintiffs were exposed to hatred, ridicule, and contempt, their peace of mind was disturbed, and their standing with a considerable and respectable class in the community was hurt, all to their damage as set forth in the writs. In the action of Charles Frederick Lyman, Jr., the last paragraph of the declaration was enlarged by the addition thereto of the words, ‘and his standing * * * both socially and in his business as an insurance broker, was hurt.’

The defendant demurred to the plaintiffs' declaration in each action, and assigned as grounds therefor the following reasons: (1) ‘That said declaration does not state a legal cause of action substantially in accordance with the rules contained in chapter 231 of the General Laws’; (2) ‘That the alleged publication set forth in said declaration contains nothing which is libellous of or concerning the plaintiff’; and (3) ‘That the declaration does not set forth anything which is libellous by its natural import or in connection with any of the facts stated or which furnishes legal ground for an action of libel by the plaintiff against the defendant.’ In each action the demurrer was sustained by a judge of the Superior Court, and the plaintiff appealed ‘from the order of the Court sustaining the defendant's demurrer.’ The actions are before this court on the plaintiffs' appeals.

It is plain the article printed concerned the plaintiffs, and it is not contended by the defendant that it did not naturally have reference to the matrimonial relations of the plaintiffs. The words printed in a libel are to be read in their natural sense with the meaning which they would convey to mankind in general. The innuendo in the declarations, that the phrase ‘rift in the lute’ is well understood as an adaptation from lines in Tennyson's ‘Idylls of the King,’ and that the defendant meant by said publication that a breach had occurred in the marital relations which would naturally and in due course lead to divorce or legal separation, while not enlarging the language used in the publication, was in substance a specification of the defamatory sense in which the words were used. As matter pleading the declarations were proper with an innuendo. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 147, Forms, 18 Instruction, page 2893. If the words of a libel are clearly defamatory, no innuendo is necessary; if incapable of a defamatory meaning, innuendo will not make them so; but if reasonably susceptible of two or more meanings, one of which is defamatory, an innuendo may be necessary. Morrill v. Crawford, 278 Mass. 250, 253, 254, 179 N. E. 609;Peck v. Wakefield Item Co., 280 Mass. 451, 453, 455, 183 N. E. 70. See Odgers, Libel & Slander (6th Ed.) pp. 98 to 117. The words “rift in the lute' of the Freddie Lymans but by this time that may not mean a thing' are not defamatory per se. That is not the sole test. The question still remains whether in their setting they were libellous. It was said in Clark v. Binney, 2 Pick. 113, 115, that ‘the most clear and precise definition of a libel, as applicable to personal actions, is contained in the opinion of the late Chief Justice Parsons, in the case of Commonwealth v. Clap, 4 Mass. 163, 168 .’ It is there stated that a libel is ‘a malicious publication, expressed either in printing or writing, or by signs and pictures, tending either to blacken the memory of one dead, or the reputation of one who is alive, and expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.’ These words by Field, J., are found in Twombly v. Monroe, 136...