Uhlman v. Farm, Stock and Home Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,610 - (151) |
| Citation | 148 N.W. 102,126 Minn. 239 |
| Parties | MARTIN UHLMAN and Another v. FARM, STOCK AND HOME COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county by the partners composing the firm of Martin Uhlman & Co. to recover $15,000 for libel. The answer among other matters alleged that the supposed defamatory matter set up in the complaint was true and each and every statement therein contained was true. It also alleged that the written warranty precluded evidence of the oral guaranty made to the farmers mentioned in the opinion, which fact the farmers did not know. The case was tried before Steele, J., who when plaintiffs rested denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $500 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.
Libelous words.
1. Written publications calculated to injure a man's character and to lower him in the confidence and respect of his fellow men are, if false, libelous per se. The publication here in question is within this rule.
Notice to retract.
2. Under G.S. 1913, § 7901, it is not indispensable that the notice of retraction specify each particular part of a published article which contains false and defamatory matter. It is sufficient if from the article and the notice together the publisher can, without difficulty, determine the words that contain the sting and which it is expected to retract.
Pleading truth of charge -- evidence admissible.
3. Where the article was called forth by a particular sale transaction, and in effect charges generally that plaintiffs were crooks and dishonest, and defendant pleads the truth of the charge, any evidence tending to prove that plaintiffs perpetrated a fraud in the sale is pertinent to the issue. It is proper to show that the thing sold was worth much less than the selling price, that plaintiffs knew it, and that they made false representations in the sale. Evidence of what the article sold for in the market is material evidence of its value.
Offer of proof.
4. Where proof is sought to be elicited on cross-examination and is excluded, it is not necessary to make an offer of proof to present the question for review.
Examination of adverse party -- impeachment.
5. Where an adverse party is called for cross-examination under the statute, the party calling him may impeach or contradict him. The attention of a witness may be called to testimony given by an adverse witness, and he may be asked if such testimony is true.
S. R Child, Benjamin Drake and Sherman Child, for appellant.
Kerr, Fowler, Ware & Furber, for respondent.
Action for libel. Defendant is a publisher of a newspaper called "Farm, Stock and Home," circulated among farmers as a farm paper. On August 23, 1910, plaintiffs were engaged in the business of traveling among farmers selling stallions. They sold to a number of farmers of Redwood county a Percheron stallion for a price of $3,000. In fact the animal was sterile and was worth not to exceed $300. The contract of sale contained a guaranty that if the stallion did not get 70 per cent of foals, with proper care and handling, plaintiffs would replace him with another of the same price upon return of the stallion in as sound condition as at the time of sale. The stallion died November 13, 1911. This guaranty was accordingly of no avail. The contract contained the further stipulation that, in the event of the stallion's death before the end of three breeding seasons, plaintiffs would replace him with another of the same price for the sum of $1,000.
It advises caution in buying stallions, warns farmers against strangers selling them, states that every man has to grab his own particular "hot poker" before he will believe that it will burn him, describes this contract as a "good grab at the hot poker" by the farmers, and it then contains the following:
1. This language, if untrue, is undoubtedly libelous per se. It in effect charges plaintiffs with being "a precious bunch of crooks" and "as straight as a rail fence and as honest as Ananias." This is a libel. Written publications calculated to injure a man's character and to lower him in the confidence and respect of his fellow men, are, if false, libelous per se. Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87, 67 N.W. 807; Davis v. Hamilton, 85 Minn. 209, 88 N.W. 744. This publication is within the rule. Defendant contends the publication was privileged, and that the court should have given the jury the law as to privileged communications. There was no request to so charge and no exception taken to the charge. This question is therefore not before us. No material evidence pertaining to the question of privilege was excluded.
2. Plaintiffs demanded a retraction under G.S. 1913, § 7901. This statute provides:
On February 9, 1912, plaintiffs made demand on defendant for a retraction. The demand was in the following language:
No retraction was made.
It is claimed this notice is insufficient to constitute a compliance with the statute, because not all of the language of the article is libelous, and the notice does not specify any particular statement as libelous. We think the notice sufficient, and so hold. The whole article pertains to the same subject-matter. It is not a long one. Taking the article and the notice together, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial