State v. Darwin

• Decision Date: 02 May 1911
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. DARWIN.

115 P. 309

63 Wash. 303

STATE v. DARWIN.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 2, 1911

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Mitchell Gilliam, Judge.

L. H Darwin was charged with criminal libel. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the State appeals. Affirmed.

George Livesey, Brown, White & Peringer, and Graven & Green, for the state.

Neterer, Pemberton & Sather, for respondent.

CROW J.

The only question in this cause is the sufficiency of a criminal complaint, to which the trial judge sustained a demurrer. The state elected to stand upon the complaint, and has appealed from an order discharging the defendant.

The complaint originally filed before a justice of the peace omitting formal parts, reads as follows:

'T S. Hamilton, being first duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says: That in Whatcom county, Washington, on or about the 12th day of April, 1910, the above-named defendant, L H. Darwin, did commit the crime of criminal libel as follows: Then and there being the said defendant, L. H. Darwin, being then and there the business manager of the American Printing Company, a corporation, by which the Morning Reveille, a newspaper published at Bellingham, Washington, and having a general circulation in and about Bellingham, Whatcom county, Washington, is, and was, then and there issued, did then and there unlawfully and maliciously defame and libel the complainant by then and there unlawfully and maliciously making public and publishing in said the Morning Reveille, and by then and there unlawfully and maliciously causing and procuring to be made public and to be published in said the Morning Reveille the defamation and libel of the said complainant, T. S. Hamilton, by words, printing and writing, tending to expose the said complainant to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy and to injure the said complainant in his business and occupation; that the said publication, printing, and writing was an article then and there published in said the Morning Reveille as aforesaid, and more particularly in substance, language, and words, as follows:

"Conditional Sales.

"T. S. Hamilton (B. B. Furniture Company) to Mrs. Emily Sarlund, go-cart, $10.

"T. S. Hamilton (B. B. Furniture Company) to Mrs. C. R. Halladay, go-cart, $15.

'T. S. Hamilton (B. B. Furniture Company), to Miss Sophia Anderson, oil stove and oven, $12.

"T. S. Hamilton (B. B. Furniture Company), to W. J. Hammons, twenty-five yards of carpet, $12.50.

"T. S. Hamilton (B. B. Furniture Company), to William Mullin, furniture, $12.60.

"T. S. Hamilton (B. B. Furniture Company), to Mrs. E. Huefner, range, $60.'

'That the complainant herein now is, and for a number of years last past has been, engaged in the sale of furniture at retail in Bellingham, Whatcom county, Washington; and his said business was, and is, known and designated at the 'B. B. Furniture Company.' That in connection with his said business complainant has made, and does now make, conditional sales contracts with his various patrons. That in said contracts the said T. S. Hamilton was, and is, named as the vendor and the various purchasers or customers as vendees, and that said conditional sales contracts at all times have been, and now are, filed in the office of the auditor of Whatcom county, Washington, and indexed therein in the name of T. S. Hamilton as vendor and the several purchasers as vendees. That the name 'B. B. Furniture Company' does not appear upon the index in the records in the office of said auditor of Whatcom county, Washington, and that none of said contracts are filed or indexed in the name of said B. B. Furniture Company. That the said defendant, L. H. Darwin, publishes and causes to be published in said the Morning Reveille, and on the 12th day of April, 1910, did publish and cause to be published in said the Morning Reveille, a report and statement of the filings in the office of the said auditor of Whatcom county, Washington, for the day or days immediately preceding the publication of said items, and that the publication of said filings for said day or days is and was made under the heading in said publication entitled 'Court House Record,' and that only items and filings of recent date were and are published in said list. That on said 12th day of April, 1910, the said defendant, L. H. Darwin, did unlawfully and maliciously publish, cause to be published, and procure the publication of the libel above set forth, and did on said date unlawfully and maliciously publish, cause to be published, and procure the publication of said libel in a place in said paper separate and apart from the publication of said report of filings in the said auditor's office and under a heading in bold-faced type entitled 'Conditional Sales,' and inserted therein as a part of said filing record the words 'B. B. Furniture Company.' That no sales other than as made by complainant are set forth in said libel. That all of the items set forth in said libel are, and were, contracts for sales that had been made and filed in said auditor's office by said T. S. Hamilton approximately two years prior to the publication of said libel, and that in said libel so published neither the detes of said contracts nor the date of the filing thereof was set forth, and that in the publication of said 'Court House Record' the said dates are and were given. That said conditional sales contracts so mentioned in said libelous publication had all been fully paid and satisfied long prior to the publication of said libel. That the publication of said libel, as specified, and the publication of the names of the purchasers named in the said conditional sales referred to and mentioned in said libel, tended to expose, and did expose, complainant to the hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy of the persons named as the vendees or purchasers in the conditional sales designated and mentioned in said libel, and tended to expose, and did expose, complainant to the hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy of the public, and tended to injure complainant in his business and occupation, in that it tended to deter, and did deter, complainant's customers and the public and the persons named as vendees or purchasers in said libel from further dealing or transacting business with complainant

...