State v. Norton

• Decision Date: 12 November 1909
• Docket Number: 16,252 - (29)
• Citation: 123 N.W. 59,109 Minn. 99
• Parties: STATE v. T. F. NORTON
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

123 N.W. 59

109 Minn. 99

STATE v. T. F. NORTON

Nos. 16,252 - (29)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 12, 1909

Defendant was indicted in the district court for Mille Lacs county and charged with the crime of criminal libel. Defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground it did not state a public offense, the demurrer was overruled, and on defendant's request the trial court, Taylor, J certified the case to this court for its decision of the following question "Is the article quoted in said indictment libelous per se within the meaning of the statute defining criminal libel?" Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Words Libelous Per Se.

A newspaper article, stating, in effect, that a county treasurer, with knowledge that he had no right to do so, withheld as such county treasurer for two years school funds belonging to a school district, during which time he "had the use of the school district's money, either on deposit in the bank in which his son is interested or otherwise," charges malfeasance in office, and is libelous per se.

George T. Simpson, Attorney General, Joseph A. Ross, County Attorney, and E. L. McMillan, for the State.

Stewart & Brower, for defendant.

OPINION

O'BRIEN, J.

The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Mille Lacs county upon a charge of criminal libel, which consisted in the publication in a newspaper published by defendant of the following article:

"BURRELL TURNS OVER $1,300.

"COUNTY TREASURER PAYS OVER SCHOOL FUNDS OF DISTRICT 17 TO CHARLES BRANT."

King Burrell, who as county treasurer of Mille Lacs County has withheld school funds belonging to District No. 17 for the past two years, last week turned over $1,300 to Charles Brant, the lawful treasurer of the district. Just how Mr. Burrell justifies his action in having withheld this money from the district all this time is something that the taxpayers of the district would like to have him explain. There was no question but that Mr. Brant was the lawful treasurer of the district at the time Burrell refused to turn the money due to the district over to him, and in so far as any question of his bonds is concerned there is no change in the least. If Mr. Burrell had any legal or moral right to withhold the funds of the district from Mr. Brant at any time there is as much excuse for it now as there ever was.

"The fact is that Mr. Burrell had no right to withhold these funds from Mr. Brant at any time, and apparently no one knows that better than himself. Mr. Burrell has had the use of the school district's money either on deposit in the bank in which his son is interested, or otherwise, and he should be compelled to pay interest for its use and also such damage as he has caused the district and Mr. Brant through his failure to turn over the money when it should have been."

A demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and the district judge certified to this court the question: "Is the article quoted in said indictment libelous per se, within the meaning of the statute of the state of Minnesota defining criminal libel?"

To render a printed article libelous, it is not necessary that it accuse a person of wrongdoing with the particularity and exactness to be expected in a well-framed...