McCue v. Equity Co-Operative Publishing Company of Fargo
| Decision Date | 23 February 1918 |
| Citation | 167 N.W. 225,39 N.D. 190 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, Pollock, J.
From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
William Lemke, for appellant.
To say of an ex-officer that he did not enforce the law while in office is not libelous. Pandow v. Eichsted, 90 Wis 298, 63 N.W. 284.
The defendants here are only responsible for the meaning which the words, reasonably interpreted and applied, would convey to the minds of the readers or hearers. Herringer v Ingberg, 91 Minn. 71, 97 N.W. 460.
Plain simple words, or their natural and usual meaning, cannot be extended, enlarged, or restricted by innuendo. Hofflund v. Journal Co., 88 Wis. 369, 60 N.W. 263.
The entire matter must be considered, and therefrom the plain import and natural meaning as intended, and the sense in which it was understood, determined. Hollenbeck v Hall, 103 Iowa 214, 39 L.R.A. 734, 64 Am. St. Rep. 175, 72 N.W. 518.
In a complaint for libel the purpose of an innuendo is to give the true meaning of the language that would otherwise be obscure. It cannot be used to enlarge the scope of common language which is plain, simple, and unambiguous. Hofflund v. Journal Co., 88 Wis. 369, 60 N.W. 263; Robertson v. Edelstein, 104 Wis. 440, 80 N.W. 724; Gunderam v. Daily News Pub. Co., 175 Iowa 60, 156 N.W. 840; Lydiard v. Wingate, 131 Minn. 355, 155 N.W. 212.
All persons have an interest in good government. Ready attempt to curb criticism of parties, leaders, and officials is not to assist good government. The people have the right to be informed concerning the plans and purposes of persons and organizations in the public affairs of our state. Greenwood v. Cobbey, 26 Neb. 449, 42 N.W. 413; Hollenbeck v. Hall, 103 Iowa 214, 39 L.R.A. 734, 64 Am. St. Rep. 175, 72 N.W. 518; Myers v. Longstaff, 14 S.D. 98, 84 N.W. 233; People v. Detroit Post & Tribune Co., 54 Mich. 457, 20 N.W. 528; Farley v. McBride, 74 Neb. 49, 103 N.W. 1036; Marks v. Baker, 28 Minn. 162, 9 N.W. 678; Wason v. Walter, L. R. 4 Q. B. 94, 8 Best. & S. 671, 38 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 34, 19 L. T. N. S. 409, 17 Week. Rep. 169; Seymour v. Butterworth, 3 Fost. & F. 372.
The article is not libelous per se; there is no damage shown, and the complaint fails to state a cause of action for slander or libel. Gundram v. Daily News Pub. Co., 175 Iowa 60, 156 N.W. 842.
W. S. Lauder, for respondent.
A demurrer to a pleading admits every allegation set forth in such pleading, which is well pleaded and the truth of fact so pleaded. Foster County Implement Co. v. Smith, 17 N.D. 178, 115 N.W. 663; Baldwin v. Aberdeen, 23 S.D. 636, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 116, 123 N.W. 80; Gustin v. Evening Press Co., 172 Mich. 311, 137 N.W. 674, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 95; Belknap v. Ball, 83 Mich. 583, 11 L.R.A. 72, 21 Am. St. Rep. 622, 47 N.W. 674; 25 Cyc. 469, and cases cited; Comp. Laws 1913, § 4352.
If the matters here published are not libelous per se, are the words as explained by the inducement and colloquium reasonably susceptible of the meaning which is attributed to them by the innuendoes? Lauder v. Jones, 13 N.D. 541, 101 N.W. 907.
An article or publication which imputes to one holding an office improper conduct therein, or to an attorney at law professional misconduct, is libelous per se. Mosnat v. Snyder, 105 Iowa 505, 75 N.W. 356; Sharpe v. Larson, 67 Minn. 428, 70 N.W. 1, 554; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 961, and cases cited; Palmerlee v. Nottage, 119 Minn. 351, 42 L.R.A.(N.S.) 870, 138 N.W. 312; Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392, 50 Am. Rep. 318; Atkinson v. Detroit Free Press Co., 46 Mich. 341, 9 N.W. 501; Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co., 34 Minn. 342, 25 N.W. 710; Hetherington v. Sterry, 28 Kan. 426, 42 Am. Rep. 169; Stewart v. Minnesota Tribune Co., 40 Minn. 101, 12 Am. St. Rep. 696, 41 N.W. 457.
It is not necessary that the person libeled should at the time of the publication still hold office. Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217, 18 N.W. 836, 20 N.W. 87; Smith v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 7, 42 N.W. 595; Sharpe v. Larson, 67 Minn. 428, 70 N.W. 1, 554; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 990 and cases cited.
False statements, contemptuous allusions, and sarcastic phrases, well calculated to humiliate, vex, and annoy the person to whom reference is made, and to bring him into ridicule, are libelous. Williams v. Hicks Printing Co., 159 Wis. 90, 150 N.W. 188; Lauder v. Jones, 13 N.D. 541, 101 N.W. 907; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 991 and cases cited.
This is an action for libel. The defendants interposed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant appeals to this court.
The complaint, the sufficiency of which is the sole question here, is as follows:
For his cause of action herein the plaintiff alleges and shows to the court:
1. That during the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant the Co-operative Publishing Company was and still is a corporation duly organized, created, and existing under the laws of the state of North Dakota, and having its main office and principal place of business at the city of Fargo, in Cass county, North Dakota; that during said times the said defendant, the Co-operative Publishing Company, published and still publishes a weekly newspaper at Fargo, North Dakota, known as "The Co-operators' Herald;" that the defendant A. M. Baker was, at said times and still is, the editor and manager of said newspaper; that said newspaper has a wide circulation among the people throughout the state of North Dakota, and in adjoining states, and is read by many persons in the said state of North Dakota and elsewhere.
2. That at the times hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, an attorney and counselor at law, duly admitted and licensed to practise as such in all the courts of the state of North Dakota, and in the Federal courts, and having his office and place of business at Carrington in Foster county, North Dakota; that at said times, and for many years prior thereto, plaintiff was and had been actively engaged in the practice of his said profession at said Carrington and elsewhere, and was and had been an attorney at law in good repute and had conducted and tried many important actions in the district courts of the state of North Dakota and the supreme court of said state, and also in the Federal courts, and had and enjoyed in a high degree the confidence and respect of the community generally as a lawyer of ability and integrity, and was and had been in receipt of a large income derived from his professional services as a practising attorney as aforesaid; that during said times and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff had enjoyed throughout the state of North Dakota and elsewhere, a good reputation as a man of personal integrity and as a business man who uniformly dealt honestly and fairly with those with whom he did business; that during said times and for a long time prior thereto, the plaintiff had and still has a large acquaintance throughout the state of North Dakota among the business and professional men of said state.
3. That the said defendants maliciously wishing, intending, and contriving to injure plaintiff in his good name, fame, and standing as a practising lawyer and as a man and business man, and maliciously wishing, intending, and contriving to bring plaintiff into public disrepute as a lawyer and man and business man, and to cause him to be shunned and avoided by the people throughout the state of North Dakota and elsewhere, wrongfully and maliciously printed, published, and circulated in the column 5 of the said Co-operators' Herald, in its issue of August 11, 1916, on its editorial page and in large bold-face type, of and concerning plaintiff, the following false, malicious, and libelous article, to wit:
A DIFFERENCE WITHOUT MUCH DISTINCTION.
Last week the Herald ran an editorial in which reference was made to an alleged railroad trip of Secretary McHugh and the attorney general of North Dakota.
The spirit of the editorial was all right, but we got the wrong pig in the dead fall.
Secretary McHugh can establish an alibi. It was another person and not the "$ 10,000 Beauty" who sat and conversed with Mr. Linde.
The Herald wants to print the truth--hard as it is to tell all the truth about the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and the stalwart gang in North Dakota.
Therefore we hasten to correct ourselves--it was another McCue--one T. F. McCue of Carrington, who was commiserating with Mr. Linde and bragging, so it is alleged, that he was raising a fund to help defeat the candidates for the supreme court who have the Nonpartisan League indorsement.
With McCue collecting an alleged "slush fund" to defeat the candidates of the League there ought to be no question of their election. McCue was formerly attorney general of North Dakota, but he was so blind to the operation of the blind pigs that the people discarded him on the first opportunity.
McHugh or McCue--take your choice--they are a fine pair and stand for the same proposition.
That the defendants intended by publication of said article to charge and convey and did thereby charge and convey to the readers of said newspaper that plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully engaged in the business of collecting a fund of money to be used wrongfully, unlawfully, and corruptly to defeat the candidates of the said Nonpartisan League for the supreme court of this state, and that pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial