Sandora v. Times Co.

• Decision Date: 29 July 1931
• Citation: 155 A. 819,113 Conn. 574
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SANDORA v. TIMES CO. PRANNO v. SAME.

155 A. 819

113 Conn. 574

SANDORA v. TIMES CO.

PRANNO v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 29, 1931

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Actions by Alexander Sandora against the Times Company, and by Julia Pranno against defendant named, to recover damages for an alleged libel. Verdict for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Benjamin Slade and Alfonse C. Fasano, both of New Haven, for appellant.

David M. Reilly and Morris Rabinowitz, both of New Haven, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY J.

These cases were tried together on motion of the defendant, and the plaintiffs claimed to have proved the following facts: February 26, 1930, and for about three years prior thereto, the plaintiff Alexander Sandora, a man of the age of 43 years, of good reputation, was living with his wife and their eight children in the town of Woodbridge, in a house owned by his sister, Maria De Mattie. His mother, Margaret Sandora, lived with him, and the plaintiff Julia Pranno, a daughter of Mrs. De Mattie, lived with her mother in the same house. Sandora's occupation was that of a farmer. The plaintiff's mother, Margaret Sandora, was of the age of 90 years, and had been living with him for 23 years. On the morning of February 18, 1930, Constable William H. Tompkins, of Woodbridge, found her on the road a short distance from Sandora's home. She was in a sitting position, and, thinking something was wrong with her, the constable went to the home of the plaintiff and talked to him and his niece. Julia Pranno. The constable and Julia Pranno then went to where Margaret Sandora was on the road. Later, the constable telephoned for an ambulance, and, on its arrival, it was discovered she had a fractured leg. The ambulance carried her to the yard of the plaintiff's home, and thereafter she was taken to the hospital.

February 18, 1930, the plaintiff Sandora was in poor physical condition with an injured leg and but one eye, having been injured three years previously in an explosion in a stone quarry where he worked; and was still receiving compensation at the rate of $8 per week for his injuries. The roads on that day were in a very icy condition.

February 25, 1930, Margaret Sandora died at the hospital. On the same day, the Home Edition of defendant's newspaper, on the front page, in large and heavy black type, each letter one inch in height, had the following: " Investigate death of aged woman." Below appeared a recital of the fact that plaintiff's mother had broken her leg and died and that officials were investigating the case and it stated that Mrs. Sandora had a fight with her son. On the following day, February 26, 1930, the defendant's newspaper published the following article:

" Will Quiz Relatives on Sandora Death.

" Coroner calls witnesses for hearing at County Building tomorrow.

" While Medical Examiner Marvin Scarborough prepared today to obey orders of Coroner James J. Corrigan to perform an autopsy on the body of Margaret Sandora, ninety, who died Monday night in Grace Hospital, the Coroner himself took further action in the case by ordering witnesses in the case into his office for a hearing. The time for this hearing has been set at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

" Meanwhile Woodbridge authorities and the humane officers of this city have started, an investigation into the situation at the Sandora home on Newton Road in Woodbridge.

" Mrs. Sandora died after five days' suffering in Grace Hospital where she was taken last week after she had been found lying in the road on Newton Road by Constable W. H. Tompkins. The woman was suffering from exposure and a broken leg, and investigation at the time revealed that she had either left her home or been ordered out after a fight with her son Louis.

" Because of the circumstances of the case, a double investigation was launched immediately after her death. The Coroner began a search for details, and ordered the body held for autopsy, while Woodbridge officials began a probe into the living conditions in the Sandora Household.

" This latter investigation so far has unearthed what appears to be a strange and unnatural situation. In the house where the old lady lived, lived also her son, eight children of his, the oldest being fourteen years and the youngest two; Mrs. Julia Pranno, a niece of Sandora's, and a Mrs. De Mattie, owner of the house. " It is the assertion of the Woodbridge authorities that at least two of the children in the house are Sandora's by his niece. The whereabouts of his wife is not known, nor do the officials know where Mrs. Pranno's husband is living.

" Whether Sandora will be held responsible for his mother's death remains uncertain. It is positively known that he refused to go to her aid after she was found in the roadway, and refused also to be responsible for her after she was taken to the hospital.

" Either one of three other brothers may claim the body if Louis, with whom the old lady lived for twenty-three years, fails to do so. The brothers are Peter, who lives on Wallace Street; Ralph, who lives on Whalley Avenue, and Dominick, of Pease Road, Woodbridge."

This article appeared in the City Edition on the front page in large type headings, together with a photograph of the plaintiff Sandora, and another photograph of his home. The " Louis Sandora" mentioned in the publication, and whose picture appeared therein, is the plaintiff, whose correct name is Alexander Sandora. The Julia Pranno mentioned is the other plaintiff.

These facts were not controverted at the trial by the defendant, and the publication of the article in question was admitted in the pleadings. The truth of the publication was not set up in the answer; and, at the trial, no evidence was offered in any way tending to show any immoral relations between the plaintiff Sandora and the plaintiff Julia Pranno. The evidence offered by the defendant was in support of the contention that the article was published in good faith, relying upon information claimed to have been obtained by its reporters from the wife of Constable Tompkins and from Clarence F. Baldwin, the first selectman of Woodbridge. That any such information had been given to defendant's reporters was denied by witnesses called by the plaintiffs, and whether or not such information had in fact been obtained, was a matter in dispute in the evidence. The defendant also claimed that none of its officers or agents had any actual ill will or hostile feeling towards either of the plaintiffs. The defendant further claimed that the article was published by it as a matter of public interest; and, at the trial, the whole controversy between the parties turned upon the question of whether or not the article was published by the defendant in good faith and with proper motives, or whether the publication was actuated by improper motives, with such indifference to its effect upon the rights and reputations of the plaintiffs as to constitute " malice in fact." The jury brought in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Alexander Sandora for $3,250; and in favor of Julia Pranno for $4,250. These verdicts were accepted by the court, and judgment entered thereon, and the defendant appealed, assigning as error the failure of the court to charge in accordance with certain requests of the defendant, and also certain claimed errors in the charge as delivered. Error is also assigned in the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict, and in certain rulings upon evidence.

The first five assignments of error are predicated upon the refusal of the trial court to charge the jury in accordance with requests of the defendant. The first four requests involve statements of law generally on the subject of libel, and the fifth involves a statement as to the burden of proof upon the question of malice. All these requests are sufficiently covered in the charge as delivered. " The court is not required to use the language, often prolix and largely argumentative in substance, with which a party clothes a pertinent request to charge." Daniels v. F. & W. Grand 5, 10, and 25-Cent Stores, 99 Conn. 415, 417, 121 A. 804. It is sufficient and usually desirable to incorporate in its own arrangement of a charge the pertinent requests of a party. Roth v. Chatlos, 97 Conn. 282, 286, 116 A. 332, 22 A.L.R. 1554.

The next six assignments of error are predicated upon extracts taken out of the charge, and evidently arise from misapprehension of counsel as to the meaning of the term " malice in fact" as contained in section 5668 Gen. Stat. (1930). The charge upon this phase of the case was adapted to the issues and in conformity with our law. Atwater v. Morning News Co., 67 Conn. 504, 517, 34 A. 865; Moore v. Stevenson, 27 Conn. 14, 28; Hotchkiss v. Porter, 30 Conn. 414, 423; Wynne v. Parsons, 57 Conn. 73, 78, 17 A. 362; Osborne v. Troup, 60 Conn. 485, 494, 23 A. 157; Hassett v. Carroll, 85 Conn. 23, 36, 81 A. 1013, Ann.Cas. 1913A, 333; Corsello v. Emerson Brothers Incorporated, 106 Conn. 127, 132, 137 A. 390.^FNa

^FNa. The charge of the court upon this subject was as follows: The words complained of charge these two plaintiffs with the crimes of adultery and incest, as well as being the parents of two illegitimate children. A charge of a person having committed a crime is libelous per se, from which the law presumes damage without special proof to that effect on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant, however, sets up as a defense what is known as a claim of privilege. I do not mean that is specifically alleged. It is not necessary that it be so. It can be raised under the general denial, and, whether or not this publication was privileged, is a

...