Monaghan v. Globe Newspaper Co.

• Citation: 77 N.E. 476,190 Mass. 394
• Parties: MONAGHAN v. GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1906
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

190 Mass. 394

77 N.E. 476

MONAGHAN v. GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

February 28, 1906

COUNSEL

William Reed Bigelow, for plaintiff.

Chas T. Gallagher and Thos. E. Grover, for defendant.

OPINION

LORING J.

This is an action for publishing the following libel of and concerning the plaintiff:

'Larceny Charge.

'Job Monaghan Arrested at Wellesley, Accused of Taking Town Money for Work He did not Do, Formerly Assistant Engineer of Fire Department.

'Wellesley June 30. Much sensation has been caused by the arrest of Job Monaghan, a well-known resident and former town official, charged with larceny of the town's money. Monaghan was placed in custody about 8:30 this evening, and was soon bailed.

'According to the allegations of the complainant, Chief of Police Kingsbury, Monaghan received pay for work he did not perform.

'The charges are that Monaghan, during the five or six years he served as an assistant engineer of the town, kept a pair of horses in readiness to attach to hose 3 and to drive that piece of apparatus in response to a fire alarm. If he did not answer on the first alarm, and there was no second, he received remuneration, but not as great as though hose 3 had answered the first call.

'It is alleged that Monaghan charged the town for a hitch of the latter character on March 23 that he did not make, but for which he was paid. The amount involved, it is understood, is less than $100. Whether any attempt to name any other date will be made on the part of the government is not stated.

'Monaghan is a stone mason and resides on Walnut St., near Lower Falls. He is about 45 years old, married, and has always lived in Wellesley. He has been prominent in town affairs and his arrest has aroused expressions of surprise on the part of his friends.

'During Monaghan's service as assistant engineer, which duties he relinquished this year as he failed of reappointment by the selectmen, his salary was $75.

'The case will come up for trial in the district court at Dedham on Wednesday.'

The answer required proof that the libel was published of and concerning the plaintiff. It then alleges 'that the same was made in good faith, without malice, expressed or implied, toward the plaintiff or any one, from reliable information, fully verified; the same being published as news matter by it, believing the same to be true.' It further alleges the truth of the statements, that it was a fair report of a judicial proceeding, and that within the time required for an answer it offered to publish the following as a retraction:

'Was Not Arrested.

'Globe's Report of Suit Against Mr. Monaghan Inaccurate.

'As there appeared in a publication of the Globe newspaper of July 1, 1902, in an article relative to the charge against Job Monaghan of Wellesley, for larceny and taking money that he did not work for, from the town, the statements that said Monaghan was arrested at Wellesley, that he was placed in custody about 8:30 in the evening and was soon bailed, were not true, the said Monaghan not being arrested but being cited or summoned to appear and answer to the charge of larceny for trial, as the article otherwise states.

'Although nearly a year and a half after the publication, on being informed of the incorrectness of this statement, the Globe immediately offered to publish a retraction or correction of anything that was wrong, but the offer not being accepted by the said Monaghan or his attorney, the Globe now publishes this retraction or correction of the circumstances in connection with Monaghan's trouble.'

And that this offer was not accepted. At the trial the defendant rested on the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff testified in its own behalf, and read the answers of the defendant to interrogatories filed by the plaintiff giving the circulation of the defendant's paper and stating that the libel was written by one Bentley, 'who received his information from the police station or police officials at Wellesley as a news item.' It was agreed that the retraction set forth in the answer was duly offered and declined. On cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendant put in the complaint and warrant hereinafter more fully stated. The plaintiff testified that he was a brick mason and plasterer; that he was connected with the fire department of Wellesley for six years; that he saw the publication complained of; that a great many of his friends spoke to him of it; that it troubled him, and that his business declined in the year following. On cross-examination, he testified that he kept a pair of horses in readiness as stated in the publication, and that he received more remuneration if his horses were used on the first alarm; that he attended court on a summons without being arrested. The complaint and warrant put in evidence were dated June 28, 1902. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff 'did steal money of the value of less than $100 of the property of the town of Wellesley.' The return of arrest on the warrant is dated July 2, 1902. By it the officer states: 'I have arrested the within-named defendant Job Monaghan, and have him before the district court.' The plaintiff testified...