Morgan v. Republican Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1924
• Citation: Morgan v. Republican Pub. Co., 249 Mass. 388, 144 N. E. 221 (Mass. 1924)
• Parties: MORGAN v. REPUBLICAN PUB. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

249 Mass. 388

144 N.E. 221

MORGAN

v.REPUBLICAN PUB. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 2, 1924.

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

Action of libel by Howard W. Morgan, doing business as the Morgan Detective Agency, against the Republican Publishing Company. From an order sustaining demurrer to declaration, plaintiff appeals. Demurrer overruled.

R. G. Wilson, Jr., of Boston, for appellant.

M. Klein, of Boston, for appellee.

DE COURCY, J.

The case is here on appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration, in an action of libel. The defendant published in its paper the story of an alleged conspiracy to ‘frame’ Captain Quilty of the Springfield police department, in connection with a probe of that department, by getting possession of his automobile, loading it with contraband liquor, and having the captain charged with illegal transportation. The article recited that one Mokus received $400 to purchase the liquor, and then absconded with the money; and that upon his arrest he made a confession, implicating as the active plotter one Hannibal L. Hamlin. Hamlin was referred to as ‘private detective of the Morgan Detective Agency of Boston,the same firm that worked for District Attorney Charles H. Wright during the probe.’ The declaration alleged that Hamlin never was in the employ of the plaintiff, who carried on business as the Morgan Detective Agency; and that by means of the publication the plaintiff ‘has been greatly injured in his personal and business reputation, and his business greatly injured by the loss of patronage which he otherwise would have had, all to his great damage.’ While the demurrer assigned several causes we understand that the only ground relied on, both in superior court and in this court, is that it does not appear that the defamatory statements were made concerning the plaintiff; that the use of the word ‘Morgan’ in no way connects him with the alleged crime, but merely indentifies Hamlin.

As was said by Field, J., in Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass. 464, 469:

‘It is only when the court can say that the publication is not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning, and cannot reasonably be understood in any defamatory sense, that the court can rule, as matter of law, that the publication is not libelous, and withdraw the case from the jury, or order a verdict for the defendant.’

Taking the language used, in the light of the extrinsic facts alleged, the test is, How could reasonable men interpret the words printed in the defendant's paper, as affecting the plaintiff? And in interpreting the language, it is to be borne in mind that:

‘A defendant is liable for what is insinuated as well as for what is stated explicitly.’ Merrill v. Post Publishing Co., 197 Mass. 185, 193, 83 N. E. 419, 423.

Further:

‘If the words published are fairly capable of two meanings, one harmless and the other defamatory, it is a question for the jury in what sense readers may have understood them.’ Twombly v. Monroe, supra, page 468.

The article in question not only involved Hamlin in a conspiracy to commit crime and defame the captain of the police force, but falsely identified him as a member of the plaintiff's detective agency,...