State v. Wait
Decision Date | 03 July 1890 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. WALTER S. WAIT |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline District Court.
PROSECUTION for libel. Trial at the October term, 1889, and judgment for The State. The defendant Wait comes to this court. The facts so far as they are material, are stated in the opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
Garver & Bond, Lovitt & Norris, and C. B. Daughters, for appellant.
L. B Kellogg, attorney general, E. W. Blair, county attorney, for The State; Chas. A. Hiller, of counsel.
OPINION
This was a criminal prosecution commenced in the district court of Saline county, in which it was charged upon information that the defendant, Walter S. Wait, published in the Lincoln Beacon, a weekly newspaper published in the city of Lincoln, in Lincoln county, and having a circulation in Saline county, a libelous article concerning J. G. Mohler, the prosecuting witness. A trial was had before the court and a jury, and the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 10, and the costs of suit taxed at $ 723.25; and from this sentence the defendant appeals to this court.
It appears that on January 3, 1888, in Lincoln county, Patrick Cleary shot and killed Jesse Turner; that afterward he was charged with murder in the first degree, and tried therefor and convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of twenty years; that the sentence was afterward reversed by the supreme court, and a new trial granted, (The State v. Cleary, 40 Kan. 287;) that on May 16, 1889, and succeeding days, he was again tried in the district court of Lincoln county for murder; that during such trial J. G. Mohler, an attorney at law residing in Saline county, assisted in the defense; that on May 29, 1889, the jury retired to deliberate upon their verdict, but failing to agree, they were discharged on June 1, 1889; that on June 3, 1889, Cleary was taken by a mob in Lincoln county, and hung until he was dead; that on June 13, 1889, the present defendant, Walter S. Wait, published in a weekly newspaper edited and published by him in Lincoln county, and known as the Lincoln Beacon, an article which reads as follows:
The newspaper in which this article was published also had a circulation in Saline county. On June 17, 1889, this present criminal prosecution was commenced in the district court of Saline county, J. G. Mohler being the prosecuting witness. Only that portion of the aforesaid article commencing with the words, "The number of people in Lincoln county," etc., and closing with the end of the article, is complained of. The case was tried in the manner and with the result aforesaid.
Section 11 of the bill of rights of the constitution, reads as follows:
Sections 270, 272, and 275 of the act relating to crimes and punishments, (Gen. Stat. of 1889, PP 2444, 2446, 2449,) read as follows:
That portion of § 272, above quoted, requiring the defendant, in order to make a good defense of justification, to prove that the alleged libelous matter was published "with good motives," has been held to be in violation of the constitution, and void. (The State v. Verry, 36 Kan. 416.)
It is claimed by the defendant that there was no proof of the publication of the aforesaid article in Saline county. The newspaper was published in Lincoln county, and the proof is meager of any publication or circulation thereof by the defendant, or at his instance, in Saline county. We think, however, the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury, and sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury that the article was published in Saline county.
The defendant also claims that the publication of the article belongs to a class which is privileged, or at least conditionally privileged. Now it is generally true that a newspaper publisher may without committing libel publish judicial proceedings, although such proceedings may contain false statements injurious to individual persons. In such a case he merely publishes the proceedings as judicial proceedings, without giving the statements contained therein any credit on his own account, and without reference to whether such statements are true or false. And in such cases he need not publish the entire proceedings, or publish them verbatim; but he may publish merely their substance. But this he should do fairly and truthfully. He may also make comments upon the proceedings, but the comments should also be fair, and should be such only as the proceedings themselves, or as the proceedings and the actual extrinsic facts would fairly warrant. He cannot assume to be true extrinsic defamatory matters which are not true, nor can he assume to be true anything in the proceedings which is still controverted, or which has not yet been judicially determined. To the extent already mentioned the publication and comments respecting judicial proceedings may go to all persons connected with such proceedings, to the judges or justices, to the jurors, witnesses, sheriffs, constables and bailiffs, and to the parties and their attorneys or counsel. There are also many other kinds of privileged publications or communications, and conditionally privileged publications or communications, including such as have reference to the official conduct of public officers, and to the qualifications and fitness of candidates for public office, etc.; but the matters published in the aforesaid article do not come within any of them. As to candidates for public office, see The State v. Balch, 31 Kan. 465. It is true that the matters published in the aforesaid article had some connection with judicial proceedings, but such matters were not the proceedings themselves, nor were they determined to be true by such proceedings. It is claimed that Mohler relied upon hanging the jury by a "fixed man." This "fixed man" was the juror J. P. Harman, who, it is claimed, was bribed. Now the fixing of this juror, and the procuring of a hung jury by means thereof,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Territory Hawai`i v. Crowley
...upon the defendant in the case of criminal libel of proving justification by a preponderance of the evidence. In the case of State v. Wait, 44 Kan. 310, 24 Pac. 354, the defendant was charged with criminal libel. The Kansas bill of rights provided that in all civil or criminal actions for l......
-
Phelps v. Hamilton
...cases from the law of civil defamation because the law of civil defamation is judge-made. In this regard, Engel cites to State v. Wait, 44 Kan. 310, 24 P. 354 (1890). It is true that Wait seems to hold that a criminal prosecution may be maintained against a newspaper for publishing false an......
-
Bearman v. People
... ... express malice may be considered by the judge in mitigation ... of the penalty. In at [91 Colo. 489] least one state, the ... jury determine the penalty, and in such case evidence of the ... defendant's good faith and want of malice is admissible ... at the ... State, 91 Tex. Cr. R ... 224, 238 S.W. 667; State v. Mason, 26 Or. 273, 38 P ... 130, 26 L.R.A. 779, 46 Am.St.Rep. 629; State v ... Wait, 44 Kan. 310, 24 P. 354; State v. Cooper, ... 138 Iowa 516, 116 N.W. 691; Richardson v. State, 66 ... Md. 205, 7 A. 43 ... (3) ... ...
-
The Southern Kansas Railway Company v. Pavey
...copy of the judgment of affirmance; but neither the syllabus nor the opinion forms part of the judgment in a civil case. In The State v. Wait, 44 Kan. 310, 24 P. 354, and A. T. &. S. F. Rld. Co. v. Dwelle, 44 id. 394, 408, it was held error to allow counsel to read to the jury the opinion o......