Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1882
• Citation: 30 Minn. 41
• Parties: DANIEL L. PRATT <I>vs.</I> PIONEER PRESS COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

30 Minn. 41

DANIEL L. PRATT vs. PIONEER PRESS COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 25, 1882.

Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover damages for an alleged libel by defendant. The action was tried before Young, J., and a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict for $2,000. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to law and not justified by the evidence.

The alleged libel was contained in the following article published by defendant in its paper:

"CULPABLE NEGLECT. Late on Sunday evening the coroner was notified that an infant had been lying dead for several days at the house occupied by Mr. Hillman on South Fifth Street opposite the Washington school, and shortly before midnight he succeeded in rousing an undertaker, and proceeded to the house, when he found that Mrs. Jessie Mankin, whose husband is a railroad employe, and now being treated in the St. Paul hospital for injuries sustained on the road, had been delivered of a seven months' child on Saturday morning, on which occasion she was attended by Dr. Pratt; and that the child lived for only a few hours, and had been allowed by the physician to remain in the room, and had already begun to decompose. The mother is young, inexperienced, and prostrated, and if a thoughtful neighbor, who accidentally learned these facts, had not brought them to the notice of the authorities, there is no knowing how much longer the body would have been allowed to remain. The coroner had it taken to Warner's, and yesterday morning the health officer had it buried. The owner of the house thought it wasn't exactly right, but supposed the attending physician would either advise or take the proper steps in the matter."

Thomas Kneeland and Boardman & Furguson, for appellant.

Babcock & Davis, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This is an action for libel. The appeal is from an order granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The rules which will govern this court in reviewing the action of the trial court in such cases have been settled by repeated decisions.

In Rheiner v. Stillwater Street Ry. & Transfer Co., 29 Minn. 147, we held "that we would not be warranted in reversing an order of this kind, simply because, if the judge below had refused to grant a new trial, we should have felt bound to sustain him; nor because there was evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict; nor because, if the motion for a new trial had been made before us in the first instance, we should have, upon a consideration of the evidence, denied the motion. But if, upon careful perusal of the testimony and mature reflection, we feel satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict, we would then deem it our duty to reverse the order granting a new trial."

In view of the judicial discretion which a trial court has always possessed and ought to possess in the matter...