Vance v. Louisville Courier-Journal Co.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1893
• Citation: 95 Ky. 41,23 S.W. 591
• Parties: VANCE v. LOUISVILLE COURIER JOURNAL CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

23 S.W. 591

95 Ky. 41

VANCE v. LOUISVILLE COURIER JOURNAL CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 21, 1893

Appeal from court of common pleas, Jefferson county.

Action by Burton Vance against the Louisville Courier Journal Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. W Thum and P. B. Muir, for appellant.

F Hagan, for appellee.

HAZELRIGG J.

This was an action for libel, instituted by the appellant against the appellee, by reason of the following publications appearing in the appellee's newspaper, the Courier Journal, of date November 3, 1886. "Wantonly Exceeding Their Province. Burton Vance, a defeated Republican candidate, was at the first precinct of the Seventh ward as a supervisor of election. In defiance of the law he interfered in every way with the polling of Democratic votes challenging the voters, insisting on naturalized citizens showing their papers, and otherwise retarding the election and intimidating the voters. He will be arrested this morning for violating his oath of office." Also the following "Officious Supervisors. Isaac Frost was arrested at the first precinct of the Seventh ward on the affidavit of Burton Vance. This young man Vance has made himself very officious. Although a supervisor, and therefore forbidden to do any electioneering, he worked constantly for Wilson, and constantly interfered with peaceable Democrats who wished to cast their ballots. He was seen to take several colored men aside, and then vote them. He himself will be arrested this morning on the charge of bribery." The appellee admitted the publication, and pleaded that the charges made therein were true, that the language was a fair and reasonable criticism upon the conduct of a public officer, and also pleaded facts in mitigation. After hearing the testimony, the jury found a verdict for the defendant company. The appellant's counsel assign some 29 errors in their motion and grounds for a new trial, all of which, however, are fully embraced in the alleged error of the court in giving and refusing instructions to the jury.

Without considering in detail the facts shown in proof, upon which the finding of the jury may be supported, we advert to it as showing the proper application of the law to the facts of the case. Vance, who was a lawyer, and an intimate friend of one of the candidates for congress, had been appointed an assistant supervisor under the provisions of the federal election law. At midnight before the morning of the election he met two Hazen detectives from Cincinnati, Ohio, made a map or rough sketch of the streets of the city for them, and agreed with them on certain signs by which he would furnish the names of voters whom the detectives had reason to believe had been bribed. The candidate at whose instance the detectives came from Cincinnati was present when these plans were matured, and, according to the testimony of the appellant, gave positive instructions to make their arrests...