Palmer v. Mahin

• Citation: 120 F. 737
• Decision Date: 17 February 1903
• Docket Number: 1,744.
• Parties: PALMER v. MAHIN et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

120 F. 737

PALMER v. MAHIN et al.

No. 1,744.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 17, 1903

Syllabus by the Court.

An unprivileged publication, in writing or print, of a false charge that another is guilty of a crime, or of a false charge that tends to expose another to public hatred or contempt, is libelous per se; and such a publication entitles the victim of the libel to full compensation for the damages to his reputation, business, and feelings which it has caused, regardless of the intent or motive with which the publication was made.

The unprivileged publication of such charges raises a conclusive legal presumption that the victim has sustained some damages and the only question for the jury is their amount.

The charge that one is a blackmailer, and has brought blackmailing suits to extort money wrongfully, is libelous on its face. So is the charge of inducing the publication of a libel in order to found suits upon it to extort money wrongfully.

In addition to compensation for his actual loss, the jury may allow to the victim of a libel exemplary damages when the publication was inspired by ill will or by a willful intent to injure, or was made in violation and in reckless disregard of the rights of the person defamed.

The publisher of such a libel may plead and prove that when he sent it forth he believed the statements it contained to be true, that he was then innocent of any intent to injure, or of any ill will towards his victim, or that he made the publication by mistake or inadvertently, for the purpose of mitigating the exemplary damages. But matter in mitigation of damages for the unprivileged publication of a libel is inadmissible to reduce or affect the compensatory damages to which the person defamed is entitled, because these damages are the same, whatever the motive, intent, or care with which the publication was made.

It is incompetent for the publisher of a libel to testify, in mitigation of damages, that he believed he was justified in making the publication, and that he made it for the public good.

The fact that the information from which an unprivileged publication was made was derived from another, and that the name of the informant was stated in the libel, is no justification for its publication, and no defense to a claim for compensatory damages therefor.

A retraction of a charge is a withdrawal of it by the party who made it. The publication of a statement that the victim of a libelous charge denies it is not a retraction of it.

It is always competent for the plaintiff in a libel suit to prove the extent and locality of the circulation of the newspaper which published it. The shipping, mailing, and subscription lists, and the proper account books, of the proprietor of such a newspaper, constitute the best evidence of these facts; and, upon proper affidavit of the materiality and necessity thereof, the plaintiff is entitled to a subpoena duces tecum, directed to the person in control of this evidence, commanding him to produce it at the trial.

While in the absence of a plea of justification, the plaintiff is entitled to recover without proof of the falsity of the charges, he has the right to make that proof, because only in this way can the difference between a technical misstatement and a cruel and irremediable falsehood be shown, and the proper measure of damages applied.

Where the plaintiff is charged with bringing blackmailing libel suits, it is competent for him to prove his business reputation, and standing when the libel which was the foundation of those suits was published, the effect of its publication upon his reputation, business, and feelings, and his acts when he learned of the publication, because this evidence tends to show the basis of the suits, and the intent of the plaintiff in bringing them.

Nothing is competent to show the intent of the defendant in publishing a libel for the purpose of mitigating the damages which was not known to the libeler when he made the publication.

John E Craig (Tyndale Palmer, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

William McNett (James C. Davis, on the brief), for defendants in error.

On October 3, 1892, John Mahin published in the Evening Journal, a newspaper of which he was the editor and publisher, at Muscatine, in the state of Iowa, an article which charged that Tyndale Palmer had robbed his employers; that he was an embezzler to the tune of $440,000; that he, in company with one Freitas, had sold patents of his employer for $510,000, had reported the sale of them for $80,000, and had retained $10,000 of this amount as his salary, and all the difference between $80,000 and $510,000. These charges were false. On November 27, 1893, Palmer wrote to Mahin that the charges in the article he had published were absolutely false, asked of him a retraction and reparation, and informed him that he would submit the proofs of the falsity of the charges to his inspection upon his agreeing to make satisfactory retraction and settlement if the evidence proved unequivocally that the charges were not true.

Mahin did not answer this letter, but on January 27, 1894, he copied into his newspaper an article from the Ottumwa Courier, which had published the libelous article of October 3, 1892, in which the statement was made that Mr. Palmer had written to that paper that the charges in the article of October 3, 1892, were absolutely false, and that he was prepared to offer conclusive proof that they were not true; that this matter came to the Courier as an item of telegraphic news, and it knew nothing about it, beyond the facts it had stated; and that, if an injustice had been done, it regretted the same, and suggested that Mr. Palmer turn his attention to the news agency that sent the matter to the newspapers. At the foot of this copied article Mr. Mahin added in his Journal that that paper was substantially in the same boat as the Courier; that it did not, however, like the blackmailing tone of Palmer's letter; that he wanted the Journal to give him a financial salve for his hurt; that it was not in that kind of business; that it never intended to do injustice to any one; and that, when it was shown that injustice had been done, it would be found prompt to make amends, but not quite so prompt when threatened with a suit as when without it.

On July 10, 1894, Palmer wrote to Mahin that he was prepared to demonstrate to him that the charges of October 3, 1892, were unfounded; that the time had come when he must complete arrangements to commence an action in order to avoid the statute of limitations; that the financial loss caused him by the publication was serious, but that he did not expect any one newspaper to pay more than its due proportion; that he was ready to adjust the case outside the courts; that the only basis of settlement on which he could meet any paper was just reparation and unequivocal retraction; that, if Mahin would recognize that basis, he would meet him in a most reasonable and liberal spirit; and that, if they were unable to agree, he suggested a reference of the entire matter to arbitration. On July 17, 1894, Mahin answered that the matter complained of came to him in plates from Kellogg, of Chicago; that the plates were inserted in his paper, without inspection, as soon as received; that he knew nothing about it, and had no intent to do any injustice to any one, and that as soon as he heard from Palmer he gave his denial to his readers; and that Palmer would never get a cent of money out of his paper unless he got it at the end of a lawsuit. Thereupon, on October 1, 1894, Palmer commenced an action against the Journal Printing Company, the alleged proprietor of the Evening Journal, for $50,000 damages for its publication of the article of October 3, 1892. On April 25, 1895, that action was dismissed, without prejudice, for want of prosecution.

On October 1, 1894, Mahin published in his Evening Journal a long article, now in suit, which stated the fact that the Journal Printing Company had been sued for $50,000 by Palmer and Freitas on account of the publication of the article of October 3, 1892; that the Journal Company was innocent of intentional slander of the plaintiffs in those actions; that the matter was supplied by the Kellogg Company, and was published without scrutiny; that, as soon as Palmer informed it that the charges were false, it gave him the benefit of his denial in its paper, and it disavowed any intention to do him an injury. That article also contained these statements 'We knew nothing about him then, and were willing to accept his statement that he was an honest but injured man. We know more of him now. His subsequent conduct, and especially the bringing of suit, satisfies us that he is a blackmailer; and we would not be surprised if it should transpire that he was the means of having the report concerning himself put into the press dispatches for the express purpose of going around as he is now doing, extorting money by threats of suing the papers which published the report. * * * We are glad to know that no respectable attorney in Muscatine would have anything to do with these blackmailing cases, though some were solicited. The attorney who has them in charge should be disbarred for unprofessional conduct. He must know that the suits are intended only to force money from the respondent on the theory of a compromise before they come to issue. * * * We understand that several other papers in Iowa have been served with notices of suits by this precious pair. The Keokuk Constitution is one, and, if we mistake not, the Waterloo Courier and Ottumwa Courier are also in the list. In all these papers a Philadelphia dispatch appeared, stating in effect, that Palmer and Freitas,...