State v. Shippman

• Decision Date: 07 June 1901
• Docket Number: Nos. 12,671 - (184).,s. 12,671 - (184).
• Parties: STATE v. PETER SHIPPMAN.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

83 Minn. 441

STATE v. PETER SHIPPMAN.¹

Nos. 12,671 - (184).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 7, 1901.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Le Sueur county, Cadwell, J., after trial and conviction upon a charge of criminal libel. Affirmed.

G. S. Ives, for appellant.

W. B. Douglas, Attorney General, and W. J. Donahower, for the State.

LOVELY, J.

Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Le Sueur of publishing a criminal libel, upon the complaint of one John Sheehy. Defendant appealed to the district court, where he was again convicted. He moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and for alleged errors of law. This motion was denied, judgment was entered upon the verdict, and defendant appeals therefrom to this court.

The alleged libel was contained in a letter written by defendant as special correspondent at Montgomery of the "Farm, Stock, and Home," a newspaper of general circulation published at Minneapolis. When the letter was received, portions of it were published in the next regular issue of that journal. The part of the letter which embraces the alleged libel purports to give an account of a conviction of third parties for having used false weights, and is in the following language:

"A firm of dealers in live stock at Montgomery, in this county, was recently found guilty in justice court of using false weights. Very criminating testimony was presented against them, such as propping up the scale in one corner with a rock, and an iron bar found under the scale, that had, to all appearances, been used as a lever to pry the scale. The state sealer found one corner all right, but another corner varied 9½ pounds on his 50-pound standard, another varied 3½ pounds, and the other 5 pounds. This firm has had the monopoly of the live stock buying at Montgomery for years, freezing out all competition, and has grown very rich. It is reported that the case will be appealed to the district court."

Immediately following is the language which it is claimed specifically refers to the complainant, and is libelous:

"It is rumored that one wheat buyer's scale was also found incorrect, but he, being a banker and `prominent citizen,' was given time to `regulate' his scale, when it was sealed and reported all right."

The complaint alleges that the above language referred to the complainant, with averments by way of innuendo to explain what was attempted to be charged thereby. It is urged for defendant that the conviction cannot be sustained, upon the ground that the alleged libelous reference to the complainant, John Sheehy, does not, upon fair construction, charge him with the criminal offense of using false weights in violation of the Penal Code (G. S. 1894, § 6758), for the reason that it cannot be inferred in the reference made to complainant that his "incorrect scales" were knowingly used by him as false, which guilty knowledge, it is claimed, is an essential ingredient of the crime of using false weights and measures.

Although only a limited portion of the entire article referred to complainant, yet it was proper to consider the whole together, to ascertain whether, in the ordinary acceptance of the language, a person could doubt its signification. Stroebel v. Whitney, 31 Minn. 384, 18 N. W. 98; Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217, 18 N. W. 836, 20 N. W. 87; Nord v. Gray, 80 Minn. 143, 82 N. W. 1082. The portion of the article in which the charges against third parties are made might, in the connection in which it is used with the portion referring to complainant, lead to the inference that his incorrect scales were also knowingly and dishonestly used. At all events, it would be a question of fact whether, in the...