Stark v. Publishers George Knapp & Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1901
• Citation: 61 S.W. 669,160 Mo. 529
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STARK v. PUBLISHERS GEORGE KNAPP & CO.

61 S.W. 669

160 Mo. 529

STARK v. PUBLISHERS GEORGE KNAPP & CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 12, 1901.

LIBEL AND SLANDER — PLEADING — ANSWER — JUSTIFICATION — EVIDENCE — PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER — ADMISSIBILITY — INSTRUCTIONS — HARMLESS ERROR — OBJECTIONS — SUFFICIENCY.

1. Evidence of plaintiff's previous good character is not admissible in chief to prove that he is not guilty of the matters charged in a libel, but such evidence is admissible as bearing on the question of damages.

2. The exclusion of evidence of plaintiff's previous good character as bearing on the question of damages for libel was not prejudicial error when the question of damages was never reached by the jury.

3. Where the defamatory matter complained of in a suit for libel is a mere conclusion or inference of facts, the particular facts relied on by defendant as warranting the inference charged must be set forth specifically in a plea of justification, so plaintiff may know the particular matter he will be called on to meet; but, when the defamatory matter charged is itself specific, it is sufficient to answer generally that the charge is true.

4. Where the defamatory matter complained of in a libel suit charged that plaintiff, as the representative of a corrupt combine of a city school board, and the leader of a lobby composed of contractors and go-betweens, was a malign influence working to defeat a legislative measure affecting his tenure of office and the existence of the board as then constituted, the charge was sufficiently specific to advise him of the particular matter he would be called on

to meet, and a general plea that the charge was true was, therefore, sufficient.

5. A question as to the sufficiency of a pleading cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

6. A general objection that evidence admitted is incompetent and immaterial saves no question for review.

7. Where the defamatory matter complained of in a libel suit charged that plaintiff, as the representative of a corrupt combine of a city school board, and the leader of a lobby composed of contractors and go-betweens, was a malign influence working to defeat a legislative measure threatening the existence of the school board as then constituted, it was not error to charge that the board had no right to engage any one to lobby for or against any bill affecting their tenure of office.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Selden P. Spencer, Judge.

Action by Charles B. Stark against Publishers George Knapp & Co. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Chester H. Krum, for appellant. Boyle, Priest & Lehmann and Morton Jourdan, for respondents.

BRACE, J.

This is an action for libel against the defendants, publishers of the St. Louis Republic. The petition charges: "That heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of March, 1897, at the said city, the said defendant maliciously published in the said newspaper, in an editorial entitled `That Lobby Settles It,' of and concerning the plaintiff, the following false and defamatory matter, to wit: `"Malign" is a good word to apply to the influences working at Jefferson City to defeat the civic federation school bill in the state senate. Led by Attorney Stark, who represents the Filley combine of the school board, the lobby against the bill is composed of contractors and go-betweens who have fattened on the corruption of the present system and are working for a continuance of fat opportunities. For Democratic senators to yield to the blandishments of a corrupt Filley combine would be the hardest blow that could be delivered against the Democracy of St. Louis in the approaching election. It would gain for the combine a continuation of power, and would deprive the Democrats of a strong advantage which the success of the bill would give them. The Republic has too much confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the senate majority to credit reports that the bill will or can be defeated by the Filley lobby.' That the school board mentioned in the foregoing publication was a public corporation created under the laws of this state, and designated and entitled `The Board of President and Directors of the St. Louis Public Schools.' That at the time of the said publication the said corporation was in charge of, and had the conduct and management of the affairs of, the public schools of the city of St. Louis, and the plaintiff was at the said time the attorney of the said corporation. That in and by the said publication the defendant charged, and intended to have it so understood and believed, that plaintiff then and there represented a corrupt combination of members and directors of the said public school corporation designated in the said publication as the `Filley combine of the school board'; also that plaintiff then and there was the leader of a corrupt lobby, which was engaged in endeavoring to defeat a certain bill then pending in the senate of the general assembly of the state of Missouri, designated in the said publication as the `civic federation school bill,' and whose purpose and object was, among other things, the repeal of the laws under which the corporation entitled `The Board of President and Directors of the St. Louis Public Schools' had been organized, and by virtue of which it enjoyed its powers and privileges as such corporation; and also that the said lobby so alleged to have then and there been under the leadership of plaintiff was composed of contractors and persons designated as `go-betweens,' by whom were meant persons who had been used and employed by plaintiff to approach and corruptly influence others, so that plaintiff would not be brought directly in contact with those thus approached and corruptly sought to be influenced, and who, thus designated, had unlawfully made and obtained large profits by reason of corrupt practices and combinations made and carried on with the members of said school-board corporation designated in said publication as the `Filley combine,' — which said combinations and practices were in violation of the duties of and of the oaths of the said members as directors of the said corporation and as public officers of this state. That at the time of the said publication herein complained of the term `Filley,' as applied to a political combination or a combination of individuals for the purposes of controlling legislation or otherwise, had come, in the said city and elsewhere within the limit of the circulation of said newspaper, to be regarded, understood, and known to most persons belonging to the Democratic party and to many persons belonging to the Republican party as an opprobrious epithet as applied to an individual as a member of an alleged combination for political purposes, or any purposes whatsoever, — had come to be understood to mean that the individual so charged with being a member of a `Filley' combination was ready and prepared to resort to and would resort to improper, unlawful, and fraudulent practices in order to accomplish the result which was had in view by the combination to which he was so alleged to belong. That the individual from whom the appellation and term `Filley' was derived by the defendant was then and there reputed to be the leader and in control of the Republican party in the said city of St. Louis. That at the time of the publication complained of herein a general municipal election was about to be held in the said city, which was and is referred to in said publication as the `approaching election.' That plaintiff was then and there, and had for years, as defendant then and there well knew, been, a member and identified with the Democratic party in said city; and that accordingly, in printing and publishing the statement that `for Democratic senators to yield to the blandishments of a corrupt Filley combine would be the hardest blow that could be delivered against the Democracy of St. Louis in the approaching election,' the said defendant then and there intended to have understood and believed, and did in substance and effect falsely charge, that plaintiff, as a member of the corrupt `Filley combine' and as a Democrat, was secretly and fraudulently working and endeavoring to accomplish the defeat or embarrassment of the Democratic party in said city at the approaching municipal election, by bringing about, as the leader of a corrupt lobby composed of persons under the control of the individual designated as `Filley,' the defeat of the so-called `civic federation school bill.' That in and by that portion of the publication herein complained of, to wit, `The Republic has too much confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the senate majority to credit reports that the bill will or can be defeated by the Filley lobby,' the defendant intended to have it understood, and did in fact mean and charge, that under the leadership of plaintiff the lobby designated as the `Filley lobby' stood ready to corruptly influence by bribery and other unlawful practices a majority of the members of the senate and of the general assembly of this state, so as to obtain the defeat of the said civic federation school bill, and that the said lobby had given out and caused to be made reports to such effect, to the detriment of the reputation of a majority of the members of such senate for wisdom and integrity. That the said publication herein complained of in its meanings and innuendoes, its context and purposes, was maliciously made and caused to be made by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff. That the same is false, and known to be false to the defendant. That it was and is calculated to deprive him of public confidence, to expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and to deprive him of the benefit of social intercourse; and that by reason of the said publication he has been damaged in the sum of twenty thousand dollars; and that the further sum of ten thousand dollars should be assessed against said defendant by...