Neilson v. Jensen

• Decision Date: 20 October 1898
• Citation: 76 N.W. 866,56 Neb. 430
• Parties: NEILSON v. JENSEN ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

56 Neb. 430

76 N.W. 866

NEILSON

v.JENSEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Oct. 20, 1898.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Evidence examined, and held not to sustain the verdict of the jury.

2. In a suit for libel, where the defense is the truth of the matter published, the defendant, to exonerate himself, must establish the truth of each libelous charge made and published.

3. A publisher may not exempt himself from liability for libeling another simply by showing that the charge published was true, but must go further, and show that the publication was made under such circumstances as justify the conclusion that he acted with good motives and for justifiable ends. Const. art. 1, § 5.

Error to district court, Dawes county; Bartow, Judge.

Action by Hans Neilson against Peter Jensen and others for libel. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.Thos. L. Redlon and D. J. Burrows, for plaintiff in error.

Albert W. Crites, for defendants in error.

RAGAN, C.

In the district court of Dawes county Hans Neilson sued Peter Jensen and others for libel. Jensen and others had judgment, and Neilson has filed a petition in error here for its review. Neilson in his petition alleged that the defendants, wickedly intending to injure him, maliciously published of and concerning him, in the Northwest News, a newspaper published at Hay Springs, Neb., the following false, scandalous, and defamatory libel: “The people of Hay Springs and vicinity seemed very much surprised when it was announced that the plow and harrow stolen from C. F. Burrows on the 15th day of April were found in the possession of Hans Neilson. The discovery, however, was not so much of a surprise to his neighbors. Indeed, it might never have been made had it not been that some of his Danish neighbors, who have known his habits for the past ten years, had determined to show him up and bring to light a few facts for the benefit of the public. He was ‘addicted’ to ‘taking what didn't belong to him’ when he lived in Crawford county, Iowa. On one occasion he stole a load of wood, but saved himself from exposure by paying the owner the sum of $20. Another time he stole a rail belonging to a railroad company, and came near getting himself into trouble again, but managed to worm out of that scrape all right. After coming to Dawes county, Nebraska, he seemed to grow bolder, and increased his nefarious tricks considerably. The first year of his residence in this county a lot of fence wire was found on his place, down in a cañon away from the house. This circumstance was looked upon with great suspicion at the time, and he soon found that he could not work the expert thief business as well as he thought he could. The statement made and sworn to by Hans Neilson which was published in the Northwest News on May 3d was absolutely false in every respect, and we do not believe that he would have been so foolish as to make such a statement had he not been persuaded to do so by T. S. Tripp, in order that the latter might earn his fee of $2 thereby. The plow and harrow stolen from C. F. Burrows on the 15th day of April were found on his place by one of his neighbors, who at once identified the owner. P. F. Carroll and H. Casselman came out to identify the implements, which was an easy matter. The plow was found under the strawstack, and the harrow was found out in the field, where it had been used. C. F. Burrows accordingly paid the reward which he had offered for the discovery of the stolen implements, and P. F. Carroll agreed to hush up the matter for a certain sum of money, which Neilson paid. It was proved beyond a doubt that Hans Neilson was guilty of the theft, and we do not consider that it was fair and just to settle the matter in that way. Hans Neilson swore in his statement that he was not in the village of...