State v. Clyne
| Decision Date | 09 February 1894 |
| Citation | 35 P. 789,53 Kan. 8 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLYNE. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
1. When a person intentionally and personally publishes of another what is libelous, by the general doctrine he is held to have malice in law against him, whatever the motive in fact.
2. Where a person is informed against in a criminal action for the publication of a libelous article charging another with having been posted, before a robbery, as to the time it would occur, and upon the trial the court permits the defendant who is a witness in his own behalf, to testify fully with regard to when, where, and how he obtained the information concerning the matters published, and as to all the facts and circumstances relevant to such publication, and also permits such witness to testify that when he published the article “he believed its statements were true,” held, that the trial court committed no prejudicial error in refusing to permit the defendant to testify as to the purpose or motive he had in view in writing the article for publication.
3. The information examined, and held to be sufficient, and not indefinite.
Appeal from district court, Stafford county; J. H. Bailey, Judge.
Joseph Clyne was convicted of criminal libel, and appeals. Affirmed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by HORTON, C. J.
Moseley & Waters, for appellant.
John T. Little, Atty. Gen., Valentine, Harkness & Godard, O. C. Jennings, Ansel R. Clark, and P. R. Nagle, for the State.
HORTON, C. J., (after stating the facts.)
On January 25, 1891, and prior thereto, the county treasurer’s office, with the other public offices of Stafford county, were situated in the courthouse in St. John, in that county; and on the night of that day the treasurer’s office was forcibly entered, and moneys, books, etc., stolen. Some time afterwards the county attorney of Stafford county commenced criminal prosecutions against several persons who were suspected of committing the offense, and among others against Joseph Clyne and B. A. Webber. At the time of the burglary and larceny, and before and since, Joseph Clyne and Frank S. Larabee both resided at Stafford. Webber’s case was taken on change of venue to Reno county, and tried at Hutchinson, before the district court of that county. The jury, however, disagreed. On the trial, James K. Oliver became state’s evidence, and testified in the case. On September 21, 1892, while the case was on trial, Clyne went from Stafford to Hutchinson, and there had conversations with Webber and Landes and others with regard to Oliver’s testimony, and in the evening of the same day returned to his home. The next morning he went to the printing office where the People’s Paper was published. Earl G. Nettleton was the editor, publisher, and proprietor. His wife, Allie M. Nettleton, and his brother, Adelbert M. Nettleton, assisted him. Clyne had no connection with the newspaper, and at that time the Nettletons were strangers to him. He wrote and procured to be published the following article as an editorial in the People’s Paper on September 22, 1892, at Stafford: Upon the trial, Clyne, who was a witness in his own behalf, was asked: "I wish you would state the purpose which actuated you to and the motive you had in view in writing that article for publication." This was objected to, and the objection was sustained. It is now insisted that material error was committed thereby. It appears that Frank S. Larabee was at the time of the publication a candidate for the office of presidential elector on the Republican ticket. It is claimed that the publication was one of privilege on that account, and that the motive or intent of Clyne in writing and publishing the article complained of ought to have gone to the jury. Clyne was permitted to testify fully with regard to when, where, and how he obtained his information with respect to Oliver’s testimony, and the thieves, boodlers, and robbers referred to, and as to all the facts and circumstances that might have any relevancy to the case, and to everything that was said or done at the time of his preparing his article for publication and in procuring its publication. He was also permitted to give the following evidence:
"Q. Now, I ask you to state, at the time that article was written and furnished to the publishers of the paper, what was your judgment and belief as to its truthfulness?
A. I believed it was true.
Q. Now, you stated that the time you wrote that article you believed it to be true?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What made you believe it was true?
A. The information that I had procured at Hutchinson, together with the information that Mr. Oliver gave me before that.
Q. The information which you procured at Hutchinson from the persons that you told the Nettletons had told you about it?
A. From the attorney, and from Mr. Webber, and from Mr. Landes, and from the conversation that I had with Mr. Oliver, and from the fact that I investigated the books and found that Mr. Larabee had drawn money out of the treasury, the county treasury, as Oliver told me he would.
Q. I believe you stated you had known Mr. Larabee for five or six years?
A. Five years, I put it, I think.
Q. Have you known him quite well?
A. During that length of time, yes, sir.
Q. What have been your relations with him for the last two or three years,-friendly or otherwise?
A. Well, they haven’t been very friendly.
Q. Do you speak as you meet?
A. No.
Q. How long has that condition of affairs existed?
A. Since he sued me for killing his dog, for $250."
Clyne also testified upon cross-examination as follows:
"Q. Did you say to Mr. Nettleton, or Mr. Nettleton say to you, about the time you were leaving the office, not to let it be known who wrote the article?
A. Yes, I believe I did. I told him I didn’t want my name signed to it.
Q. Why didn’t you want your name signed to it?
A. Oh, people that write for papers don’t generally do that.
Q. Are you a newspaper correspondent?
A. I was starting out in the business then.
Q. That was your maiden effort, then?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had any experience in that line since?
A. No, I have not written very much since.
Q. In giving your reason for not signing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Cartwright
...charge in good faith, upon the honest belief that it was true, which is the very question we are now considering. See, also, State v. Clyne, 53 Kan. 8, 35 P. 789. The is said to be based upon common sense, and to be fully justified by the reason, that, where actual malice, as distinguished ......
-
Reid v. Nichols
... ... se (Morgan v. Lexington Herald Co., 138 Ky. 637, ... 128 S.W. 1064), the settled rule in this state is that, where ... the publication is libelous per se, the law presumes malice ... and authorizes a recovery of punitive damages (Tanner v ... show that the publication was made in good faith and under ... belief in its truth is admissible (State v. Clyne, ... 53 Kan. 8, 35 P. 789; People v. Stark, 59 Hun, 51, ... 12 N.Y.S. 688, affirmed in 136 N.Y. 538, 32 N.E. 1046), we ... are not aware of any ... ...
-
Coleman v. MacLennan
... ... Character--Privileged Matter. If the publisher of a ... newspaper circulated throughout the state publish an article ... reciting facts and making comment relating to the official ... conduct and character of a state officer, who is a candidate ... 741] publication ... of libelous matter implies malice, whatever the motive may ... be. ( The State v. Clyne, 53 Kan. 8, 35 P. 789.) So, ... a fiction was invented to meet an unnecessary fiction which ... became troublesome, and the courts go on gravely ... ...
-
Cobb v. Okla. Publ'g Co.
... ... Already Preferred." 2 The article in question contained a rather lengthy comment upon conditions claimed to be existing on the east side of the state relative to Indian minors being defrauded of their allotments, giving a number of instances in which fraud and graft was claimed to have been ... ...