State v. Norton

• Decision Date: 08 June 1896
• Citation: 36 A. 394,89 Me. 290
• Parties: STATE v. NORTON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

36 A. 394

89 Me. 290

STATE

v. NORTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 8, 1896.

(Official.)

Exceptions from superior court, Cumberland county.

George W. Norton was indicted for libel. The defendant filed a demurrer. The presiding justice overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepted. Overruled.

The material allegations in the first count of the indictment are as follows: "Against what man is Deputy Sheriff Charles A. Plummer (meaning the said Charles A. Plummer) now plotting, by the employment of a needy man who shall act as 'spotter,' that some one who has incurred the liquor deputy's displeasure (meaning the said Charles A. Plummer) may be punished? (meaning that the said Charles A. Plummer was engaged in a scheme to obtain some needy man to act as a 'spotter' to obtain evidence against some person who had incurred the displeasure of the said Charles A. Plummer.) Who will be the next young man to lay himself liable to state prison for a term of years by taking a false oath by direction of this guardian of our laws? (meaning that the said Charles A. Plummer had procured and caused one young man to lay himself liable to state prison for a term of years by committing the criminal offense of perjury by direction of the said Charles A. Plummer, and that the said Charles A. Plummer had thereby been guilty of the criminal offense of subornation of perjury;) to the great damage, scandal, and disgrace of the said Charles A. Plummer, to the evil example of all others in like cases offending, against the peace of said state, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided."

C. A. True, Co. Atty., for the State.

A. W. Coombs, for defendant.

EMERY, J. The indictment charges that the respondent maliciously published, by printing in a daily newspaper, in Portland, the following language concerning Charles A. Plummer, then a deputy sheriff, specially charged with the enforcement of the liquor law in Portland, to wit: "Against what man is Deputy Sheriff Charles A. Plummer now plotting, by the employment of a needy man who shall act as spotter, that some one who has incurred the liquor deputy's displeasure may be punished? Who will be the next young man to lay himself liable to state prison for a term of years by taking a false oath by direction of this guardian of our laws?"

The respondent, admitting all the allegations by his demurrer, contends in his argument that this language so published does not constitute a criminal libel.

This question was wholly one for the jury, since under our constitution and statute, in all indictments for libels, the jury determines the law as well as the facts. Const, art. 1, § 4; Rev. St. c. 129, § 5. But, since this provision is for the benefit of the accused, he may waive it, by admitting the allegations of fact, and asking the court to determine the law. State v. Gould, 62 Me. 507. Hence the case is properly before us.

The respondent urges that the language published does not accuse Mr. Plummer of any criminal offense. Such a charge is not essential to a criminal libel. There is a wide difference in this respect between words spoken and words printed in a newspaper. Many words which merely spoken are not actionable become punishable as libelous when embedded in type, and...