Patterson v. Evans

• Decision Date: 13 February 1911
• Citation: 134 S.W. 1030,153 Mo.App. 684
• Parties: MARY E. S. PATTERSON, Respondent, v. SAMUEL L. EVANS, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

134 S.W. 1030

153 Mo.App. 684

MARY E. S. PATTERSON, Respondent, v. SAMUEL L. EVANS, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

February 13, 1911

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. W. O. Thomas, Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Holmes Holmes & Page and M. J. Kilroy for appellant.

Lyon & Lyon for respondent.

OPINION

ELLISON J.

Plaintiff's action is for libel. She recovered judgment in the circuit court for five hundred dollars actual and one thousand dollars punitive damages.

It appears from the allegations of the petition that plaintiff purchased of defendant a ton of coal which proved to be worthless for fuel; that she informed defendant of that fact and he refused to allow her to return it, whereupon she notified him that she would not accept the coal and that it was subject to his order, and refused to pay for it. That defendant, after informing plaintiff that he would do so, had her name published in a paper, called "Edgar Merchants Exchange," established and carried on for the purpose of publishing the names of delinquent debtors. The charge is then made in the petition in the following words: "That said Edgar Merchants Exchange was and is a journal published in Iola, Kansas, and in common circulation among the business men in Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas and all over the country, which journal contains the names of delinquent debtors with the name of the person or firm reporting same, and to report and cause a name to be printed in the delinquent list of said journal means that the person so appearing in said delinquent list is unworthy of credit and such list is commonly known in the business community as the black-list; that the said Edgar Merchants Exchange has printed in it the following: 'Bradstreet and Dun is the Wholesalers' Bureau of Information, Edgar Merchants Exchange is the Retailers' Bureau of Information.' You are, no doubt, aware that the Merchants Exchange is published and revised monthly showing all delinquent debtors in 140 different towns in Kansas, Missouri and the State of Oklahoma, and goes into the hands of over 4000 merchants and doctors monthly.' That the said Edgar Merchants Exchange has also printed on the first page the following instructions above the names of the towns, creditors and debtors: 'Instructions. The number shown before the name is the town number. The number shown between the first and last name is the month in the year the delinquent was listed. The number shown after the name is the merchant's number. Send out all notices to be due to list in from 10 to 15 days.'"

"That the said defendant, who is a subscriber to the Edgar Merchants Exchange, and whose name appears on page 21 of the 1908 May publication, maliciously, wantonly and wrongfully, without cause and for the sole purpose of injuring plaintiff's credit and humiliating her and unlawfully forcing her to pay him said unjust claim for said coal and knowing the same to be false, caused to be published of the plaintiff in the 1908 May number of the Edgar Merchants Exchange, on page 25, the following: '82 Patterson 9 Mrs. 3129 Bell K. C. Mo. 2552.' That the number 82, according to the rules of the publication, meant Kansas City, Mo., and the number 2522, according to the rules of the publication, referred to the said defendant whose name appeared opposite that number on page 21 as the subscriber who caused the name of the plaintiff to be published. That the said defendant also caused the plaintiff's name to be put in various numbers prior to the May number, 1908, and in various numbers since up to the filing of this suit."

At the trial two instructions were given to which defendant excepted. They submitted as one of the issues in the case, whether plaintiff was dishonest, and whether those reading the paper and finding plaintiff's name in the "delinquent list," would understand that such list "was composed of persons that were dishonest and unworthy of credit." Defendant objected to these instructions on the ground that they introduced the element of dishonesty of plaintiff when that had not been charged as a part of the matter composing the libel, nor had that meaning been ascribed to it.

We think the objection well taken. The petition charges that plaintiff's name was published in the "delinquent list," and that to "cause a name to be printed in the delinquent list of said journal means that the person so appearing in said delinquent list is unworthy of credit, and such list is commonly known in the business community as the black-list." When the printed language which is charged to be libelous is such that it may have different meanings, or is ambiguous, the meaning ascribed to it by the pleading will bind the pleader. Such statement of meaning is a notification to the defendant of what he is charged with and what he must prepare himself to defend. It would violate all rules of pleading, not to say common fairness, to allow the meaning ascribed to the words by the plaintiff himself,...