Nixon v. Dispatch Printing Company
| Decision Date | 14 June 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,082 - (98) |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 258,101 Minn. 309 |
| Parties | ANNIE M. NIXON v. DISPATCH PRINTING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $20,000 for libel. The case was tried before Orr, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for one dollar. From an order denying a motion for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Libel -- Publication of Pleading.
A publication of judicial proceedings, if fair and impartial, is privileged; but a complaint or other pleading in a civil action, which has never been presented to the court for its action, is not a judicial proceeding within the rule, and its publication, if it contains libelous matter, can only be justified by showing that it is true.
Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.
R.L. 1905, § 4920, provides that no prosecution for libel shall be maintained against a newspaper for a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, or of any statement, speech, argument or debate in the course of the same. As soon as a complaint in an action has been filed it is a public document open to public inspection, and that document was a proceeding within the meaning of the term used in the statute and specifically held to be privileged. The complaint, with the summons, had been served upon this plaintiff and filed in the office of the clerk of the district court. After such filing or as soon as the service of the summons was made upon the defendant, the action was begun. Section 4920 is very similar to the California statute on the same subject. The California courts hold that the publication of a complaint before trial is privileged. Hollis v. Meux, 69 Cal. 625; Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 72 F. 810. Complaints like this have been published by the newspapers, with full knowledge of the officers of the state, for many years. This practical construction of the statute tends strongly to show that newspapers have the privilege claimed. 2 Lewis, Statutory Construction, § 474. In Searles v. Scarlet, 2 L.R. (1892) Q.B. Div. 56, we find the distinction pointed out between the publication of what is a secret document and the publication of a document open to public inspection. The logic of that decision leads to the conclusion that the publication of this public document was not libelous. See, also, Beiser v. Scripps-McRae Pub. Co., 113 Ky. 383. It is for the public interests to give information of the beginning of suits against individuals.
Schmidt & Newman, for respondent.
R.L. 1905, § 4920, applies to a criminal prosecution for libel. But even to claim immunity from a criminal prosecution for libel, there must be an actual proceeding in open court. Under the English law ex parte or preliminary proceedings are not privileged, even though such proceedings are had in open court with a judge or magistrate sitting. Rex v. Lee, 5 Esp. 123; Rex v. Fisher, 2 Camp. 563; Duncan v. Thwaites, 10 E.C.L. 255; Delegal v. Highley, 32 E.C.L. 435. Most states have extended the common-law rule as to fair and impartial reports of the proceedings of trials so as to include such reports of ex parte or preliminary proceedings when a judge or magistrate is sitting. 1 Jaggard, Torts, 532.
The question has not been presented often to courts of last resort, but each time it has been the doctrine contended for by appellant has been repudiated. Cincinnati Gazette Co. v. Timberlake, 10 Oh. St. 549; Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392; Parker v. Detroit Free Press Co., 72 Mich. 560; Todd v. Every Evening Printing Co. (Del.) 62 A. 1089; Barber v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 3 Mo.App. 377.
Action to recover damages in the sum of $20,000 for libel. Plaintiff was given a verdict for one dollar. The defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
There is no dispute as to the facts, which are as follows: The defendant is engaged in the publication of a newspaper known as the "St. Paul Dispatch." On October 5, 1905, it published the article complained of, which was libelous on its face, in its newspaper. The article was taken from a complaint then on file in a divorce action commenced by the plaintiff's husband against her in the district court of the county of Ramsey. Extracts from the complaint so on file were published by the defendant, without actual or express malice or ill-will toward the plaintiff; and, further, it has been the custom for many years of newspapers in the city of St. Paul to publish extracts from or comments on complaints when filed in the district court prior to the trial of such actions, and such pleadings have been considered by the newspapers as privileged. The sole question for our decision is whether the facts stated show that the publication was privileged.
The fact that managers of newspapers have been accustomed to publish, when filed, the pleadings in civil actions, and to consider such publications as privileged, is immaterial, for neither custom nor opinion can withdraw person, character, or property from the protection of the constitution. The law is well settled that a publication of judicial proceedings, if fair and impartial, is privileged. If the complaint which was published in this case was a judicial proceeding, within the meaning of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial