State v. Fish
| Decision Date | 05 March 1917 |
| Citation | 100 A. 181,90 N.J.Law. 17 |
| Parties | STATE v. FISH. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Union County.
Herwood Fish was convicted of libel, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued June term, 1916, before GUMMERE, C. J., and TRENCHARD and BLACK, JJ.
Codding & Oliver, of Elizabeth, for plaintiff in error. Alfred A. Stein, Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Elizabeth, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of libel. The case made against him was that he had circulated a printed article among certain of the voters of his county in which he stated the following of one William E. Johnson, who had been a member of the Union county grand jury:
"As a member of the grand jury he succeeded in protecting the biggest swindler to my mind that ever struck the county, and although I understand an indictment was voted against his friend, for some unexplained reason it was never handed in."
The first ground upon which we are asked to reverse the conviction is that the indictment did not charge a crime, because the words set out in it are not libelous. This point is almost too tenuous for discussion. The words cited charge a member of the grand jury, the holder of a public office of great importance, with malfeasance in his office of the gravest character. That such a charge, if untrue, is plainly libelous was decided by this court in Heller v. Duff, 62 N. J. Law, 101, 40 Atl. 691.
The next contention is that it was error for the trial court to allow the deputy clerk to read from the record in the clerk's office the names of the members of the grand jury for the May term, 1911, for the purpose of showing that Johnson was a member of that body. This reading was objected to upon the ground that it was immaterial who were the members of the grand jury, except, perhaps, as to William E. Johnson. This objection having been made, the court ruled that the reading was only evidential for the purpose of ascertaining Mr. Johnson's membership. This ruling wiped out the ground of objection, and consequently, the defendant can take nothing by this contention. We may add that we are unable to see how any harm could have come to the defendant from the reading of this grand jury list, even in the absence of the ruling just referred to.
Next it is urged that the court committed error in excluding testimony offered in support of the truth of other matters contained in the alleged libelous article, but which were not referred to in the indictment, or made a ground of charge against the defendant. We think this testimony was properly excluded, for, if it be conceded that the charges at which it was directed were true in fact, that could not afford any justification for the untruthful statement which is made the subject of the indictment.
Next it is contended that it was erroneous to refuse to permit the defendant to prove matters which had occurred in the grand jury room during the investigation of the charges made against the person who was designated by the defendant as "the biggest swindler that ever struck the county." The offer was to show that facts had been communicated to him by one McDevitt, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. French
...where plaintiff seeks redress for libel and slander against the charge that he, as a grand juror, protected a swindler, State v. Fish, 90 N.J.L. 17, 100 A. 181 (1917). Such circumstances are not present in the case at The trial court erred in holding the respondent, William Hopf, guilty of ......
-
State v. Borg
...jury, largely, no doubt, because the witnesses are not sworn to secrecy, as intimated by the present Chief Justice in State v. Fish, 90 N. J. Law, 17, 100 A. 181. The judgment in that case was reversed, 91 N. J. Law, 228, 102 A. 378, L. R. A. 1918E, 12, but on grounds not affecting the poin......