Walsh v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1913
• Citation: 157 S.W. 326
• Parties: WALSH v. PULITZER PUB. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

157 S.W. 326

WALSH v. PULITZER PUB. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 20, 1913.

1. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 86)—PLEADING—INTENDMENTS.

The general rule that a pleader is supposed to have stated his case in the manner most favorable to himself applies in an action for defamation; consequently, where the petition in an action for libel did not set out words which were libelous per se in themselves or state facts showing them to be so, no intendments can be indulged so as to establish the defamatory character of the words.

2. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 86)—PLEADING—INNUENDO.

Where the words have two meanings, one of them harmless and the other injurious, the innuendo in the petition in an action for libel should point out the injurious meaning, for the libelous language will be given its ordinary import

unless an explanation accompanies the words which gives them a different meaning.

3. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 86)—PLEADING—INNUENDO.

Rev. St. 1909, § 1837, providing that it shall not be necessary to state in the petition any extrinsic facts to show the application to the plaintiff of the defamatory matter out of which the action arose, was simply intended to provide a short form of innuendo in actions of libel and slander, and does not dispense with the necessity of a statement of sufficient facts by way of inducement to show that the words charged to be defamatory per se were spoken with the intention of imputing a crime or exposing plaintiff to ridicule.

4. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 86)—PLEADING—INNUENDO.

Where the words charged to have been spoken are not libelous per se, a colloquium is necessary to show that they were used in such sense as to render them libelous per se, and a mere innuendo is not enough.

5. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 10)—WORDS ACTIONABLE PER SE—WHAT CONSTITUTES.

A publication stating that the candidacy of such a person as plaintiff for the office of district attorney should fill the city with alarm, followed by a statement that he has no qualifications for the office, is not libelous per se, being a mere criticism upon his fitness.

6. EVIDENCE (§ 20)—JUDICIAL NOTICE.

Courts cannot be ignorant in court of what they themselves and all others know out of court; therefore courts will take judicial notice that the reputation of a criminal lawyer is not affected by the reputation of his clients.

7. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§§ 7, 16)—WORDS ACTIONABLE PER SE.

A publication charging that plaintiff, an attorney engaged in criminal practice, could have no fit motive in aspiring to the place of district attorney, and that his associates and sponsors were survivors of the most degraded regime the city ever knew, is not libelous per se under Rev. St. 1909, § 4818, because not tending to expose plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence, or to charge him with a crime, for not only is it not a crime to associate with criminals but the character of the clients of an attorney engaged in criminal practice does not affect the attorney's reputation, and a mere statement that one seeking public office had no proper motive in doing so charges no offense but is a mere criticism of his candidacy.

8. LIBEL AND SLANDER (§ 48)—PRIVILEGE.

While the reputation or character of a candidate for public office cannot be falsely attacked in the newspapers, yet it is the right of a newspaper to discuss his fitness for the place he seeks either by analysis of his individual qualifications or by comparison with other candidates.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James E. Withrow, Judge.

Action by Henry M. Walsh against the Pulitzer Publishing Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is a suit for libel brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover damages for a certain publication made by the latter in its newspaper the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, while the former was a candidate for the nomination for the office of circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis. The defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was sustained, and the plaintiff, after formal exceptions and the usual procedure, appealed to this court.

The petition, the sufficiency of which is the sole question here, is as follows:

"Plaintiff states that he is a resident of the city and state aforesaid, a member of the St. Louis bar, admitted to practice law in the state of Missouri; that the defendant is a corporation operating under the laws of the state of Missouri, in the city of St. Louis; that under and by virtue of said laws the said defendant is engaged in the publication of a certain daily newspaper in said city and state; that said daily newspaper is known and published as the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch."

"Plaintiff for his first amended cause of action, leave of court first having been obtained, states that on the 22d day of July, 1908, the defendant, being then and there the owner and publisher of the said daily newspaper aforesaid, did publish in said paper aforesaid the following false and defamatory libel of and concerning the plaintiff, to wit:

"`Connett for Circuit Attorney.

"`Of more direct importance to the people of St. Louis than the presidency is the office of the circuit attorney. Good men, bad men and indifferent men have held it. The results in each case are familiar.

"`It is an office which in the possession of a good man vitalizes law for the restraint and punishment of wrongdoers of every degree. In such hands, it protects the people from the rapacity of wealth and power and from betrayal by the corrupt as well as from the vulgar crimes of the violent and the dishonest. It is a mighty engine of publicity and so, in many ways, it operates as a check upon oppression. Properly administered, it is the law in action. Improperly or corruptly administered, it is the law asleep or perverted.

"`Four men are to figure conspicuously at the Democratic primaries as candidates for this office: William C. Connett, Campbell Cummings, Carl Otto and Henry M. Walsh. Those who are acquainted with the habits and propensities of the gangs, old and new, will need no warning that if well disposed Democrats divide their votes among Connett, Cummings and Otto there is extreme danger that Walsh, a man manifestly unfit, will receive the nomination.

"`The mere candidacy of such a person as Walsh for such an office should fill the city with alarm. He has no qualifications for the place. His sponsors and his associates are survivors of the most degraded régime that St. Louis ever knew. He can have no proper motive in aspiring to the place.

"`Without reflecting in any manner upon Cummings or Otto, who are honorable men, the Post-Dispatch believes that it expresses the prevailing sentiment of good citizenship here when it says that those who would bar Walsh's way to this great office should vote at the primaries for William C. Connett.

"`By natural ability, by education, by experience, by character, by temperament, by association and by impulse to do right and to fight for the right, Mr. Connett is unmistakably designated as the man upon whom self-respecting voters should unite for the defeat of Walsh.

"`We hope and believe that Messrs. Cummings and Otto themselves will see the matter in this light and withdraw from the contest.

"`Whether they remain in the field or not, the duty of Democrats to defeat Walsh is plain and they can do that in no other way so effectively as by uniting upon Mr. Connett at the primaries.'

"Plaintiff further states that the said Henry M. Walsh referred to in this article is this plaintiff, and that it was the intention and meaning of the said article to damage this plaintiff in his good name and in his practice of his profession as a lawyer, and to further damage this plaintiff in his application as a candidate for the office of circuit attorney. Plaintiff further states that the object of said articles was and is to hold this plaintiff up to the scorn, ridicule, contempt, and hatred of the public and to the friends and acquaintances of the plaintiff and to deprive the plaintiff of the benefits of public confidence. Plaintiff further states that the said statements in said libel are untrue and wholly without foundation and are made in a malicious effort on the part of the publishers of the said publication to further the ends of the said defendant and to damage this plaintiff as aforesaid.

"Plaintiff further states that said publication is willful, wanton, and malicious, and that he has been damaged thereby in the said city of St. Louis, Mo., in his reputation, and has been held up to the scorn, ridicule, and contempt of his friends and acquaintances and has been rendered odious to the public of the city of St. Louis and has suffered great mental anguish and distress because of said libelous publication, from all of which he has been damaged in the sum of $25,000, for which sum he prays judgment as actual damages.

"Plaintiff further states that by reason of the aforesaid publication, and as a means to prevent the further publication of said false and defamatory matter and as punitive damages for the publication of the aforesaid false and defamatory libel, plaintiff prays that he be awarded the sum of $25,000.

"Plaintiff further prays for the judgment as aforesaid, and that the defendant be required to pay the costs of this suit."

Henry M. Walsh, of St. Louis, for appellant. Judson, Green & Henry, of St. Louis, for respondent.

WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The words in the petition alleged to have been libelous are as follows: "The mere candidacy of such a person as Walsh for such an office should fill the city with alarm. He has no qualifications for the place. His sponsors...