Turner v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 01 April 1892
• Citation: 30 P. 24,8 Utah 75
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: FREDERICK TURNER, RESPONDENT, v. SIDNEY STEVENS, APPELLANT

30 P. 24

8 Utah 75

FREDERICK TURNER, RESPONDENT, v. SIDNEY STEVENS, APPELLANT

Supreme Court of Utah

April 1, 1892

APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts.

Affirmed.

Messrs Kimball and Allison, for the appellant.

Mr Orlando W. Powers, for the respondent.

ZANE C. J. ANDERSON, J., and BLACKBURN, J., concurred.

OPINION

ZANE, C. J.:

This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages in consequence of the publication by the respondent of a circular consisting in part of the following language: "Prevaricators and Liars. Mr. Stevens: There have been two men here from Woolley, Lund and Judd. One by the name of Smith has come several times. They say the Deering Company you represent is busted up. I told them I would ask you first, before I would believe it, as I had agreed to take a Deering binder. They offered to sell theirs a great deal less, and commenced to tell lots of lies about you, when I told them I had known you twenty years, and you would not deceive me like they were evidently trying to do, as I knew it was lies they were telling me. I think the other man's name was Turner." It appears from the evidence that in using the word "Turner" the defendant referred to the plaintiff; that the reference was so understood; and that the defendant distributed quite a large number of the circulars to various persons. The jury found the language complained of to be false, and the defendant guilty, and assessed plaintiff's damages at $ 1,500. The defendant entered a motion for a new trial, and from the judgment of the court overruling it and upon the verdict the defendant has appealed, and insists that the damages are excessive.

The evidence does not disclose any justifiable motive for the libel, and defendant's publication of it appears to have been deliberate and repeated, from the fact that it was distributed on different occasions. The damages awarded were to compensate the plaintiff for the injury to him from its publication. Sutherland, in his excellent work on Damages says: "There ought to be no difference, and in principle there is none, between words actionable in themselves, and other defamatory words followed by actual injury, beyond the change in the burden of proof. In the former case, the injury is presumed; in the latter case, it must be alleged and proved. The intrinsic nature of the wrong and injury is the same in both ...