Palmer v. Smith

• Decision Date: 09 April 1875
• Citation: 21 Minn. 419
• Parties: JESSE W. PALMER <I>vs.</I> WARREN SMITH.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

21 Minn. 419

JESSE W. PALMERvs.

WARREN SMITH.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 9, 1875.

Action for libel. The complaint is set forth in the opinion. In his second defence, defendant, among other things, sets forth so much of the complaint as includes the two first sentences of the alleged libel, with the innuendoes, and avers that the words so set forth are true. In his fourth defence, the defendant says "that in mitigation of damages, the defendant renews and repeats all and singular the matters stated under the second defence herein, and will give evidence thereof in mitigation of damages, as well as in justification." To so much of the complaint as embraces the third sentence of the alleged libel, the defendant demurred. The district court for Jackson, Nobles, and Rock counties, Waite, J., presiding, ordered that the justification in the second defence be stricken out, and the demurrer overruled. From these orders defendant appealed.

Daniel Buck, for appellant.

Emory Clark, for respondent.

BERRY, J.

The complaint alleges that the defendant composed and published of and concerning the plaintiff, in a certain newspaper, an article containing the following false and defamatory matter, to wit: "As to my circulating exaggeration and falsehoods about the death of his wife, (meaning the wife of plaintiff,) it is as vile a slander as ever fell from his (meaning the plaintiff) whiskey polluted lips. Half the truth has not been told by me about that sickening case of neglect, desertion and death; (meaning the death of plaintiff's wife, by plaintiff's neglect and desertion of her.) In our (meaning defendant and others) opinion, it (meaning the death of plaintiff's wife) is not only a case of criminal neglect, but also of criminal intent, (meaning that the plaintiff criminally neglected his wife, with a criminal intent to cause her death,) and the unfeeling perpetrator (meaning the plaintiff) of this revolting outrage (meaning the death of plaintiff's wife, caused by plaintiff's criminal neglect of her, criminally intending her death,) should ever wear the mark of Cain, and be stigmatized by the race he (meaning the plaintiff) has dishonored."

The alleged libel contains but one substantial charge against plaintiff, viz, that of neglect and desertion of his wife, resulting in her death, such neglect and desertion being characterized by different epithets in different portions of the libel. The libel is therefore indivisible. Morrison v. Harmer, 3 Bing....