Palmerlee v. Nottage
| Decision Date | 15 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,726 - (51) |
| Citation | 138 N.W. 312,119 Minn. 351 |
| Parties | A. S. PALMERLEE v. G. W. NOTTAGE and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Dodge county to recover $4,000 for libel. From an order, Childress, J., overruling their demurrers to the complaint, defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Libel against public officer.
A publication which charges by way of insinuations and comparisons that cause exists for the removal of a public official, because of favoritism, nepotism, and malfeasance in office, is libelous per se.
Libel against public officer.
An article stating that it is easy to work the county commissioners held actionable; for the word "work," in the connection and manner in which it appears in the publication, conveys a reflection upon the competency and integrity of the officials.
Lord & Ronken, for appellants.
S. L Pierce, for respondent.
The defendants own and publish a newspaper in Dodge county. In 1911 plaintiff was a member of the board of county commissioners. During the year there was an agitation to change the location of the county seat, and special election for that purpose was to be had on July 11. On June 29, 1911 the defendants published in their paper the article hereinafter referred to. Plaintiff brought this suit for libel, setting out two causes of action. Defendants demurred to each separately, and from the order overruling the demurrers this appeal is taken.
The article serving as the basis for the first cause of action is as follows:
We have no hesitancy in holding that the court rightly overruled the demurrer to this cause of action. The article conveys the thought that the county commissioners had been guilty of malfeasance in office. There is no occasion to initiate steps for the removal of a commissioner unless there has been official misconduct. A charge need not be made directly -- indeed, the venom and sting of an accusation is usually more effective when made by insinuations. The floating calumny which each reader may affix to any and every official act which his aroused suspicion may lay hold of is capable of inflicting graver injury and injustice than a direct, specific charge, which may be squarely met and refuted, if untrue. The contention that the article is a legitimate criticism cannot be adopted, for no act of the commissioners is referred to. Calling names is not criticism.
As to the second cause of action, the complaint contains allegations that a committee called the "Press Committee" had been appointed to write newspaper articles favorable to removal of the county seat, and then avers that in an article in their paper of June 29, 1911, entitled: "Four-year-old Tommy Jones to His Teacher," the defendants publish the false and defamatory matter of and concerning plaintiff:
"Teacher -- What was it created for?" (Meaning what was the said Press Committee...
To continue reading
Request your trial