Mcclellan v. L'engle
Citation | 77 So. 270,74 Fla. 581 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Decision Date | 20 December 1917 |
Parties | McCLELLAN 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
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.
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:
The newspaper editorial referred to as Exhibit B is as follows:
Exhibit B.
'L'Engle a Capital Joke.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar
... ... 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.
...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
...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
...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......