Oles v. Pittsburg Times

• Decision Date: 16 July 1896
• Docket Number: 31-1896
• Citation: 2 Pa.Super. 130
• Parties: Irene Oles v. The Pittsburg Times, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

2 Pa.Super. 130

Irene Oles v. The Pittsburg Times, Appellant

No. 31-1896

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 16, 1896

Argued April 7, 1896 [SYLLABUS MATTER] [SYLLABUS MATTER] [SYLLABUS MATTER] [SYLLABUS MATTER] [SYLLABUS MATTER] [SYLLABUS MATTER] [SYLLABUS MATTER] [SYLLABUS MATTER]

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, June Term, 1894, No. 683, on verdict for plaintiff.

Trespass for libel. Before Stowe, P. J. Verdict for plaintiff for $ 600.

On December 4, 1893, the Pittsburg Times, a daily newspaper published in the city of Pittsburg, received and published the following article from its correspondent at Washington, Pa:

Excitement Over Alleged Witchcraft at Washington.

The parents of a little boy and the neighbors attribute what the doctors pronounce a nervous malady to the evil influence of an old woman.

Washington, __ Pa. __, Dec. 3. -- West Washington is greatly excited over the strange case of 12-year-old John Newman, son of Henry Newman, who for a week has been affected by an ailment which many of the neighbors stoutly claim is witchcraft.

The boy was sitting in a chair last Sunday at his home when his head fell forward on his breast and he pitched to the floor. No one was about the house but the mother and younger children, and by the time the neighbors were summoned he was found to be in spasms. Later he frothed at the mouth and barked like a dog. Dr. J. B. Irwin was called and rendered what aid was in his power, and has since called Dr. Wray Grayson in consultation on the case.

The Times correspondent visited the Newman home this afternoon, but found the blinds tightly drawn and received no response to repeated knocks. The nearest neighbors told a story of superstition almost incredible regarding the boy's parents. The Newman family, as well as many neighbors, believe the boy is possessed of devils, and that an old woman who resides on Cherry alley, this place, named Oles, is responsible for his peculiar behavior.

The Newmans will receive no strangers in their home and no one at all after the sun goes down. This they believe to be required of them by the witches. Mrs. Charles Ring who resides opposite, shares the belief of the Newmans and thinks the boy is laboring under a strange spell brought on by contact with Mrs. Oles. The last named peddles medicine and often visited the Newman home.

Mrs. Ring says she visited a witch woman in Pittsburg Tuesday and received instructions how to treat the boy. She said they could not tell for nine days what the treatment would bring forth. She further said that a wild looking colored man had been seen in consultation with Mrs. Oles.

Mr. and Mrs. Ring lately moved here from Pittsburg.

The parents of the boy live in a very modest one story frame house, the father working in a stone quarry.

Dr. Irwin says the boy's trouble is of a nervous nature, but that he was undoubtedly greatly frightened by the old woman.

It also appeared from the record and evidence that:

Upon this article as published, the plaintiff, Irene Oles, brought an action for libel against The Times, alleging that said article was false, scandalous, illegal and defamatory, intended to hold her up to public ridicule and reproach, and to deprive her of her means of livelihood.

Plaintiff was an old woman, and in a small way a peddler of herbs and homemade remedies among the poorer classes of the people of Washington. West Washington, the scene of the events related in the article, is a newer portion of the borough of Washington, and the people are for the most part of the less intelligent laboring class. The article on its face is but a plain recital of events which actually transpired in this community, and in which as defendant alleged the public had an interest.

The substantial indeed almost literal truth, of every statement in the article as published, so far as it related events and declarations, was not seriously controverted upon the trial of the case.

The court below, Stowe, P. J., charged the jury as follows:

Gentlemen of the Jury: The plaintiff's claim in this case is founded upon an alleged injury done her by the publication in the Pittsburg Times, which has been given in evidence and which is alleged to be a libel, in legal terms. A libel, as you heard stated, is any publication, either by signs, printing or otherwise, that is calculated to bring upon anybody public odium or contempt, or which is likely to injure them in their standing in society, in general terms.

The allegation in this case is that this article imputes to the plaintiff, or insinuates or indicates to the person reading it that the plaintiff is what they used to call (and do call still, apparently, to my utter astonishment) a witch; that is to say, one who by direct communication, spiritual or physical, as it may be, with the devil, has a power to exercise an evil influence over other human beings.

At one time it was the general belief that there were such things as witches, and the history of that matter is a very amusing one, apart from the tragedy connected with it in many cases. Amusing to us now, but a very serious matter in its time. It is said that at common law in England, to be a witch, assuming that there were such things, was a felony. In 1675, I think it was, all previous statutes (there having been some before that) were repealed, and then it was made a felony punishable by death. To be a witch was a capital offense, and even so great a judge as Judge Hale, who was looked upon as one of the most merciful criminal judges, and the most learned that ever sat upon the bench up to this day, sentenced a woman to be hanged for the crime of witchcraft. And the most singular thing connected with the whole matter is that upon the scaffold, or drop, she actually admitted, as many of them did, that she had been guilty of witchcraft. But by degrees, when people became more intelligent and enlightened, that belief passed away, and in 1755, or 1756, an act of parliament was passed in England abolishing the offense. I believe those are the dates. They are near enough for the present purposes. The book under the head of witchcraft defines the meaning as understood at that time, of the terms conjurers, witches, sorcerers or charmers, as persons who shall use, practice or exercise any witchcraft, sorcery, charm or enchantment, or who shall use, practice or exercise any invocation or conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit. It is further said: " That belief in the thing called witchcraft having become obsolete it is now no longer an offense."

During the trial of this case it would strike me that if the author had been here he would have come to the conclusion that the belief in witchcraft hardly had ceased to exist. Probably most of you know that even in this country in Massachusetts staid and sober old Massachusetts more than one person was put to death for the crime of witchcraft.

But it is no longer a criminal offense, and therefore to charge one with witchcraft is not what we call per se a libel. To charge one with a criminal offense is a libel in itself, and it does not make any difference, so far as the case is concerned, whether there was any actual or specific damage done or not. It is not for the jury, it is a matter of law for the court; it is the duty of the court to say where a charge is made of a criminal offense that it is libelous per se; and unless there is something by way of justification, it is the duty of the jury, if an action is brought, to give the plaintiff damages.

But this case, standing as it does now, the charge not being of a criminal offense, is not a matter of law for the court, but a matter for the jury to determine whether, under all the circumstances of the case, the imputation or suggestion or statement, if such there is by the fair and natural construction of this paper, that one is a witch is calculated to injure the reputation or standing or safety or business of a party so charged in society. If it is, then it is a libel because it is a publication the natural tendency of which is to injure and affect the reputation of another, and whenever a publication of that sort is made without some legal excuse shown for it -- as I may say, by way of parenthesis, none is shown in this case -- then it is a libel, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.

What the natural construction of this article is is for you. You have heard it discussed. You take it with you and read it. What is the imputation suggested?

What would anybody believe from reading that article? Does it impute or charge this woman with being a witch? Is that such a construction or inference or conclusion as any ordinarily reasonable man would draw from that paper? If not, if there is nothing of that kind to be inferred, then, of course, the plaintiff has made out no case. But if that is the natural and fair construction of the article (and that is a matter for you, as I said before), then it is libelous, if to call one a witch in plain terms would be calculated to injure his reputation or standing in society.

Now when you come to that you have got to take the world as you find it, and people who publish newspapers have got to take the people as they know them, or are bound to know them to be. If this was an article read in some society of learned men who did not believe in such things as witchcraft, or that there were such things as witches, probably it would have no effect at all; they would not believe it, and therefore it would do no harm. But you have heard the testimony, and you have your own knowledge on that point -- a knowledge of the superstitions of the masses of the people, and if with that knowledge you are led to believe that being called a witch would...