Mcclellan v. L'engle

Citation77 So. 270,74 Fla. 581
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Decision Date20 December 1917
PartiesMcCLELLAN et al. v. L'ENGLE.

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.

Action by Claude L'Engle against George A. McClellan and the Metropolis Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Judgment reversed, and new trial awarded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A civil action for libel will lie when there has been a false and unprivileged publication, which exposes a person to distrust hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes such person to be avoided, or which has a tendency to injure such person in his office, occupation, business, or employment. If the publication is false and not privileged, and is such that its natural and proximate consequence necessarily causes injury to a person in his personal, social, official, or business relations of life, wrong and injury are presumed or implied, and such publication is actionable per se.

The language of a publication alleged to be libelous should be construed as the common mind would naturally understand it.

A libelous publication falsely and maliciously made is not privileged. The protection of the privilege may be lost by the manner of its exercise, though the belief in the truth of the charge exist.

In an action to recover damages for a published libel, it is held on the facts of the case that there was reversible error in admitting testimony that the writer of the libelous article an employé of the defendants, at a time and place when he was not acting within the scope of his employment, made statements that would indicate improper motives of the defendants in making the publication complained of.

COUNSEL George C. Bedell, of Jacksonville, for plaintiffs in error.

Thomas B. Adams, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

A declaration herein contained four counts, the first three of which were eliminated on demurrers, leaving the fourth count which is as follows:

'Comes now the plaintiff, Claude L'Engle, by his attorney, Thomas B. Adams, and sues George A. McClellan and the Metropolis Company, a corporation under the laws of the state of Florida, defendants, * * * for that the plaintiff before and at the time of the committing by the defendants of the several grievances hereinafter mentioned was a person of good name, credit, and reputation, and deservedly enjoyed the esteem and good opinion of his neighbors and other good and worthy citizens of this state and of the United States, and the plaintiff was then and there a member of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, having been duly elected to said office from the state of Florida at large, and the plaintiff was also then and there a Democratic candidate for nomination to said office from the Fourth congressional district of Florida at the primary election to be held June 2, 1914; that on the 18th day of April, 1914, the defendant the Metropolis Company, a corporation under the laws of the state of Florida, was the publisher of a certain newspaper known and designed as the Florida Metropolis, which said newspaper was published in the city of Jacksonville, Duval county, Fla., by the defendant the Metropolis Company, and the said George A. McClellan was the editor of said newspaper; that at the time aforesaid the said newspaper had a wide and extensive circulation in the state of Florida and elsewhere, particularly in said Fourth congressional district, including the city of Jacksonville, Fla.; that on the said April 18, 1914, the defendants, well knowing the premises, but contriving wickedly and maliciously and intending to injure the plaintiff in his good name, fame, and credit, and to bring him into contempt and ridicule before the people of the State of Florida, and in particular before the Democratic electors of the said Fourth congressional district, and in order to lessen the plaintiff's chances for nomination to said office from said Fourth congressional district, did, on said April 18, 1914, publish an editorial of said newspaper which was widely distributed throughout the state of Florida, and in particular throughout the said Fourth congressional district, with the following headlines: 'L'Engle a Capital Joke'--that copy of said editorial is hereto attached, marked Exhibit B, and made a part hereof; that in and by said editorial, among other things, the defendants falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff as a private citizen, and of and concerning the plaintiff in his said office as member of the House of Representatives, and of and concerning the plaintiff as candidate aforesaid, the following words, that is to say:

"It is a disgrace that the real people of Florida should have to be shamed by the presence in Washington of such a clown and grand-stand player'--meaning thereby that the plaintiff was regarded by the members of the House of Representatives and others in the capacity of a clown and grand-stand player, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to be respected by the members of that body, or by the people of Florida who had elected plaintiff to said office.
'And the defendants by the publication of said editorial falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff in the capacities aforesaid the words following, that is to say:

"He [meaning the plaintiff] has done absolutely nothing for Florida since he was sent to Washington'--thereby meaning that the plaintiff had not faithfully served and had not attempted to serve his constituents faithfully since the term of plaintiff's said office began, to wit, on March 4, 1913.

'And the defendants by the publication of said editorial falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff in the capacities aforesaid the words following, that is to say:
"He [meaning the plaintiff] was unable to vote intelligently in the caucus when the House [meaning the House of Representatives of the United States Congress] was organized, and had to have Frank Clark assist him [meaning the plaintiff], and then he [meaning the plaintiff] turned around and threw verbal mud at his teacher'--thereby meaning that the plaintiff did not have sufficient intelligence to know what his duties were in caucus and to know what was proper action on his part.
'And the defendants by the publication of said editorial falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff in the capacities aforesaid the words following, that is to say:
"Ask any real Floridian who has visited the capital the last year [meaning the year 1913] and they will tell you that the fellow [meaning the plaintiff] is a joke and the laughing stock of the capital city official life'--thereby meaning that the members of the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States Congress, and other officials connected with the United States government, held the plaintiff up in ridicule and scorn and gave the plaintiff no consideration whatsoever.
'And the defendants by the publication of said editorial falsely and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff in the capacities aforesaid the words following, that is to say:
"It would be almost a crime to send him [meaning the plaintiff] back to continue to heap ridicule upon the state [meaning the state of Florida]'--thereby meaning that the plaintiff was wholly incapable and incompetent to perform the duties of said office to which he had been duly elected, and for which he was seeking renomination; that the words quoted as aforesaid, with the innuendoes of the defendants as aforesaid, were false and malicious, and were intended by the defendants to injure the plaintiff in his private character, and in his said office as member of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, and in his candidacy for nomination at the primary election as aforesaid, and were intended to work a loss of confidence in the plaintiff and to bring the plaintiff into contempt, scorn, and ridicule among his neighbors and other good and worthy citizens of this and other states, and particularly among the Democratic electors of said Fourth congressional district.
'Wherefore plaintiff sues and claims $100,000 damages.'

The newspaper editorial referred to as Exhibit B is as follows:

Exhibit B.

'L'Engle a Capital Joke.

'Well wouldn't it jar you? Claude L'Engle has had to get a bunch of reactionaries to give him a certificate that he was not hissed when he made his speech against the President on the free tolls repeal question. Champ Clark, reactionary Democrat, Claude Kitchen, reactionary Democrat, James R. Mann, reactionary Republican and Republican floor leader, John J. Fitzgerald, reactionary Democrat, who voted with Cannon in the rules squabble before Cannon had his wings trimmed, and notorious as a follower of the interests, and Walter M. Chandler, a Bull Mooser, who voted against the President, certify that Claude was not hissed and give him an immunity bath as the great unhissed turncoat from Florida, the one member of the Florida delegation to turn his back on the first Southern-born Democratic President since the war, and give aid and comfort to Willie Hearst and John R. McLean, the millionaire leaders of the reactionary faction, trying to humiliate the progressive President because they cannot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 1938
    ... ... V. R. Co ... v. Rivers, 93 Miss. 557; La. Oil Corp. v ... Renno, 173 Miss. 609; Great A. & P. Co. v ... Majure, 167 So. 637; McClellan v. O'Engle, ... 77 So. 270; Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 189 N.E ... 210; Reusch v. Roanoke Cold Storage, 22 S.E. 358; ... Am. Pub. Co. v ... ...
  • Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 16 Febrero 1968
    ...145 Fla. 455, 199 So. 568, 570 (1941) ("the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, if believed by the jury * * *"); McClellan v. L'Engle, 74 Fla. 581, 77 So. 270, 273 (1917) ("the language used may or may not be, by a jury, considered * * *."), but none of these cases involved the precise issue......
  • Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Brautigam, 58-409
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Marzo 1961
    ...loyalty or misconduct in office. See State ex rel. Arnold v. Chase, supra; Jones v. Townsend's Administratrix, supra; and McClellan v. L'Engle, 74 Fla. 581, 77 So. 270. To excuse such an attack, the critic must show the truth of what he was uttered. This, of course, does not include those i......
  • Nodar v. Galbreath
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 13 Diciembre 1984
    ...231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970). White v. Fletcher, 90 So.2d 129 (Fla.1956); Abram v. Odham, 89 So.2d 334 (Fla.1956); McClellan v. L'Engle, 74 Fla. 581, 77 So. 270 (1917). Although we recently said that there is no qualified privilege "to defame a private person merely because the defamatory commu......
  • 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