Reese v. Fife
Decision Date | 14 July 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 24710.,24710. |
Citation | 279 S.W. 415 |
Parties | REESE v. FIFE. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Charles R. Pence, Judge.
Action for libel by Edward M. Reese against J. O. Fife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed on condition of remittitur.
Cooper & Neel, and Whitson Rogers, all of Kansas City, for appellant.
George H. Kelly, William Buchholz, I. B. Kimbrell, and Martin J. O'Donnell, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an action for libel, commenced January 27, 1920, and tried in December, 1921. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for $20,000 actual and $10,000 punitive damages, from which the defendant appealed.
The evidence for the plaintiff is that he was 37 years of age at the time of the trial. At 17 he was a telegraph operator at a little station on the Pennsylvania Railroad in Indiana. In 1904 he was train dispatcher, and shortly thereafter was made chief train dispatcher at Ft. Wayne, Ind., at $150 per month. For five years (until 1919) he was assistant trainmaster at $190 per month. At 21 he married Lou Claire, the daughter of Mrs. Nancy K. Jones, one of the defendant's sisters. Two children were born of this marriage, a boy and a girl. The plaintiff bought a residence at Ft. Wayne, for which he was to pay $5,500. He was a man of good habits, and saved his earnings to pay on the home.
The defendant lives in Kansas City, Kan., where he practiced law until December 31, 1912. He then became one of the principal promoters of Hill Top Metals Mining Company, a corporation which owned a mining property in Arizona about 20 miles distant from Rodeo, a station on a railroad in New Mexico. The corporation was capitalized at $10,000,000; the shares being of the par value of $1 each. Defendant's son, R. O. or Raleigh Fife, was superintendent and A. C. Jones, Mrs. Reese's brother, was secretary of the corporation.
Plaintiff met the defendant in 1900, and had considerable correspondence with him; their relations were very friendly. A. C. Jones frequently talked to plaintiff about the mining property, got him interested, and, early in 1917, plaintiff visited the mine, and, at the request of A. C. Jones, he sold stock to his railroad acquaintances on commission, and bought about $5,000 of the stock for himself. Plaintiff accompanied persons to the mines, and, if any of them bought stock, he received a commission. These commissions amounted to $6,000. Mrs. Reese acompanied plaintiff on one of these trips in July, 1918, and became infatuated with her bachelor cousin, R. O. Fife. Shortly after this trip, plaintiff received an anonymous letter warning him that the relations between Mrs. Reese and Raleigh were improper. Later he found a letter written by Raleigh to her. Hoping there was nothing improper in their relations, he determined, however, to discover what they were. A party of "prospects" from Pittsburgh, Pa., planned to visit the mines in September, 1918. Mrs. Reese was anxious to join them, and it was concluded that she and the plaintiff would accompany them. The day before the party was to start plaintiff, by arrangement, received a fake telegram advising him of his mother's serious illness, and calling him to her bedside. Mrs. Reese went with the party, but plaintiff, instead of going to see his mother, accompanied by an attorney and two officers, Carey and Knott, took an earlier train and reached Rodeo in advance of the party. That night they found Raleigh and Mrs. Reese in the same bed, in a room in what is called the guest house at the mines. Plaintiff returned to his home at Ft. Wayne and commenced suit for divorce. He went to defendant's office in Chicago, on October 11th or 12th, and told him he had brought the action. Defendant became very angry, and demanded that plaintiff dismiss the suit, saying if he (plaintiff) did not, and he dragged the Fifes into this thing, that he and Raleigh Fife would make a bum out of him, and would ruin him and put him in the penitentiary; that he knew how to handle these things.
The defendant employed attorneys for Mrs. Reese and appeared at and sat with them during the trial of the action for divorce. This was in February, 1919. His nephew, A. C. Jones, who was closely associated with the defendant, testified as a witness for Mrs. Reese to acts of marital infidelity on the part of Reese. Raleigh Fife's deposition was read. After hearing the evidence, the court announced neither party was entitled to a divorce ; thereupon the matter was compromised, the charge of adultery was withdrawn, and the court granted the plaintiff a divorce, and ordered him to pay the defendant $50 per month as alimony for the support of the children. At the trial of the instant case, there was substantial evidence that the material testimony adduced in behalf of Mrs. Reese in the action for divorce was false.
It appeared from the evidence that defendant had told his sister, Mrs. Nancy K. Jones, that he intended to prosecute and imprison Edd, the plaintiff. The defendant offered and read in evidence a letter his sister, Mrs. Jones, wrote him under date, Topeka, Kan., July 31, 1919, as follows:
Lou Claire is Mrs. Reese; Perry, Mrs. Jones' deceased husband; Arthur, her son, referred to as A. C. Jones; and Lant is Mrs. Connelley, her sister. The defendant's answer to this letter is the libel declared upon in the petition, and reads:
The defendant's answer covers 17 pages of the printed record.
Paragraph 1 admits that the defendant in August, 1919, wrote a letter to his sister, but avers he is unable to admit writing the letter set forth in the petition, and demands that plaintiff be put to the proof thereof.
Paragraph 2 avers that his letter to his sister was a privileged communication and was written in reply to a letter from her wherein she made inquiries and requested information as to defendant's attitude towards plaintiff; that the information therein and advice was for her personal benefit; that his sister did not show said letter to any one; and that whatever publication has been given to it was by plaintiff and his agents.
Paragraph 3 avers that all the statements set forth in his letter to his sister were true, as this defendant was informed, and that defendant had good reason to believe and did believe the same to be true; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Randol v. Kline's, Inc.
......Ry. Co., 14 S.W. (2d) 574; Minter v. Bradstreet Co., 73 S.W. 668, 174 Mo. 444; Cook v. Globe Printing Co., 127 S.W. 332, 227 Mo. 559; Reese v. Fife, 279 S.W. 415; Seested v. Post Pub. Co., 31 S.W. (2d) 1054; Walton Trust Co. v. Taylor, 2 Fed. (2d) 342; Black v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 218 ......
-
Kleinschmidt v. Bell, 38849.
......37 C.J., p. 45, sec. 379; Nelson v. Musgraves, 10 Mo. 648; Meriwether v. Knapp & Co., 120 Mo. App. 354; Reese v. Fife, 279 S.W. 415. (3) It was improper for the court to permit respondents to offer in evidence articles in the St. Louis Star in 1921, seventeen ......
-
Warren v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.
......(a) Privilege is a question of law for the court. Cook v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 241 Mo. 326; McClung v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 279 Mo. 370; Reese v. Fife, 279 S.W. 415, Callahan v. Ingram, 122 Mo. 355; Brown v. Globe Printing Co., 213 Mo. 611; Peak v. Taubmann, 251 Mo. 390; Lee v. Fuetterer ......
-
Sylvester v. Armstrong
...... the position of manager of the hotel. Jones v. Express. Co. (Cal.) 262 P. 78; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Watson (C. C. A.) 55 F.2d 184; Reese v. Fife. (Mo.) 279 S.W. 415; Donner v. Francis, 255. Ill.App. 409; Manley v. Harer (Mont.) 264 P. 937;. Stewart v. Riley (W. Va.) 172 S.E. ......