Walsh v. Pulitzer Publishing Company

• Citation: 157 S.W. 326,250 Mo. 142
• Parties: HENRY M. WALSH, Appellant, v. PULITZER PUBLISHING COMPANY
• Decision Date: 20 May 1913
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

157 S.W. 326

250 Mo. 142

HENRY M. WALSH, Appellant, v. PULITZER PUBLISHING COMPANY

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

May 20, 1913

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. James E. Withrow Judge.

Affirmed.

Henry M. Walsh pro se.

(1) With regard to the possible effect of the words printed and the language used and their effect in the community it has been held that language used affecting a person, particularly in his business or profession are actionable without special damage proven. Coal Co. v. Rose, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 743; Minter v. Bradstreet, 174 Mo. 44; Baldwin v. Walser, 41 Mo.App. 243; Johnson v. Dispatch Co., 2 Mo.App. 565. (2) If the statement of the defendant is true that plaintiff "sought this office for no good purpose," the article or editorial charges are defamatory and libelous. R.S. 1899, sec. 2259; R.S. 1909 sec. 4818. (3) Does this article charge plainly and openly the corruption of the plaintiff? Does this article attempt to "deprive" the plaintiff "of the benefits of public confidence?" Does it in plain language intended to be understood by the merest child, tend to "provoke" the plaintiff "to wrath or to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule?" If this article does not do any and all of the things which are stated as statutory libel in this State, then the English language has no meaning. The editorial in question had no object other than to expose the plaintiff to public hatred and to deprive him of public confidence; the language "The mere candidacy of such a person as Walsh for such an office should fill the city with alarm," is a call to the public to destroy the confidence of the public in Walsh, it is intended to hold Walsh up to public hatred and contempt, it charges that he seeks this office, which if "improperly or corruptly administered, it is the law asleep or perverted, with no proper motive." The editorial charges in plain language that the plaintiff is corrupt and seeks to commit crime. The language and charges of the editorial if true are sufficient to cause the disbarment of the plaintiff. Yeager v. Bruce, 116 Mo.App. 473; Smith v. Burrus, 106 Mo. 94; Brown v. Bruce, 59 Mich. 467; Sweeny v. Baker, 13 W.Va. 183; Reank v. Wilcox, 81 Ill. 70.

Judson, Green & Henry for respondent.

(1) It is not libelous per se to impute evil motives, or even an intention to commit a crime to any person. Evil thoughts are not criminal. Townsend on Libel, sec. 162; Hogg v. Dorrah, 2 Port. 213; Greenwood v. Colby, 26 Neb. 449; Fanning v. Chace, 13 L. R. A. 134; Mitchell v. Sharon, 59 F. 980; Sillors v. Collier, 151 Mass. 50; Duffy v. Evening Post, 96 N.Y.S. 629. (2) Therefore, a fortiori it is not an actionable libel freely to discuss the motives, as well as the supposed fitness and mental and moral qualifications of a candidate for public office. Deiner v. Star-Chronicle, 232 Mo. 417; Branch v. Knapp & Co., 222 Mo. 580; Cook v. Pub. Co., 241 Mo. 326; U. S. v. Smith, 173 F. 240; Sweeny v. Baker, 13 W.Va. 184; Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235; Duffy v. Evening Post, 96 N.Y.S. 629; Yeager v. Bruce, 116 Mo.App. 473; Sillors v. Collier, 151 Mass. 50; Belknap v. Baily, 11 L. R. A. 74; Sherwood v. Harison, 8 L. R. C. P. 9; Miner v. Detroit Post, 49 Mich. 358; Howarth v. Barlow, 113 A.D. 258; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 1042; 25 Cyc. 404. (3) The petition herein contains no innuendo, no colloquium and no allegations of special damage. Therefore, not being libelous per se the demurrer was properly sustained. Deiner v. Star-Chronicle, 232 Mo. 417; Duffy v. Evening Post, 96 N.Y.S. 629; Branch v. Knapp & Co., 222 Mo. 580; Ukman v. Daily Record, 189 Mo. 390; Mitchell v. Sharon, 59 F. 980; Fanning v. Chace, 13 L. R. A. 134. (4) It is no crime for anyone to associate with bad men or even with criminals, and a city ordinance prohibiting such association is unconstitutional. City v. Roche, 128 Mo. 548; Ex parte Smith, 135 Mo. 226. Therefore, it cannot be libelous per se to say that one's associates and his political supports are members of a "gang" or that they are survivors of a "degraded regime."

WALKER, J. Brown, P. J., and Faris, J., concur.

OPINION

WALKER, J.

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 22nd 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 wrong-doers 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 regime 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 further to 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 wilful, wanton and malicious and that he has been damaged thereby in the said city of St. Louis, Missouri, 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 twenty-five thousand dollars 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 th...