Peterson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1896
• Docket Number: Nos. 9998 - (108).,s. 9998 - (108).
• Citation: 65 Minn. 18
• Parties: SAMUEL D. PETERSON v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

65 Minn. 18

SAMUEL D. PETERSON v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.¹

Nos. 9998 - (108).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 4, 1896.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Brown county, Webber, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Reversed.

Ferguson & Kneeland, for appellant.

S. L. Pierce, for respondent.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

START, C. J.

This is an action for libel, in which the plaintiff recovered a verdict for $5,200, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

The defendant on January 19, 1893, received at its office in New Ulm, from Albert Blanchard, a message for transmission over its telegraph line to St. Paul, which read thus: "New Ulm, Minn. 1-19, 1893. To S. D. Peterson, Care Windsor, St. Paul, Minn.: Slippery Sam, your name is pants. [Signed] Many Republicans." The New Ulm operator sent the message over the wires to St. Paul, where it was taken from the wire by the operator, and delivered to the plaintiff in a sealed envelope bearing his address as stated in the message.

The record presents three questions for our consideration: (1) Was the message a libel, or fairly susceptible, on its face, of a libelous meaning? (2) Was the evidence sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the defendant maliciously published the supposed libel? (3) Are the damages awarded so excessive as to justify the conclusion that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice? We answer each of the questions in the affirmative.

1. The message was, on its face, fairly susceptible of a libelous meaning. The sting is in the word "slippery." This word, when used as descriptive of a person, has a well-understood meaning. It

means, when so used, that the person to whom it is applied cannot be depended on or trusted; that he is dishonest, and apt to play one false. Century Dict. If such is the meaning of the word as used in this message, — and of this the jury were the judges, — it was clearly libelous, because, if a man is dishonest, and apt to play one false, he merits the scorn and contempt of all honorable men. To falsely publish of a man that he is slippery tends to render him odious and contemptible. Such a publication is a libel. Wilkes v. Shields, 62 Minn. 426, 64 N. W. 921.

2. The question whether or not the defendant maliciously published the libel is one of some doubt, but we are of the opinion that it was a question for the jury, under the evidence.

Technically, the defendant published the libel when it communicated it to its operator at St. Paul, but whether such publication was wrongful (that is, actionable) depends on the further question whether or not it was privileged. The defendant was a common carrier, and was bound to transmit all proper messages delivered to it for that purpose, but it was not bound to send indecent or libelous communications. Where a proffered message is not manifestly a libel, or susceptible of a libelous meaning, on its face, and is forwarded in good faith by the operator, the defendant cannot be held to have maliciously published a libel, although the message subsequently proves to be such in...