Washington Times Co. v. Hines

• Decision Date: 04 May 1925
• Docket Number: No. 4157.,4157.
• Citation: 5 F.2d 541
• Parties: WASHINGTON TIMES CO. v. HINES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

5 F.2d 541 (1925)

WASHINGTON TIMES CO. v. HINES.

No. 4157.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted March 3, 1925.

Decided May 4, 1925.

W. J. Lambert, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

A. P. Hines, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal by the defendant from a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the District in an action for libel. Plaintiff's wife had filed a bill for divorce in the court below, in which the following averments were made:

"III. That the defendant in August, 1917, brutally assaulted this plaintiff, striking her in the face, blacking her eye, and breaking her glasses; that at another time, in August, 1917, defendant again brutally assaulted this plaintiff, throwing a butter dish at her; that in the fall of 1920 the defendant again assaulted this plaintiff with a salt shaker.

"IV. That this defendant has frequently assaulted and abused the plaintiff, deserting and abandoning her for long periods of time, and then returning and asking to be forgiven and to be taken back into the home."

"VII. That the defendant has willfully deserted and abandoned your petitioner, refusing to resume matrimonial relations with her, although living in the same house and under the same roof; that he would repeatedly go out and spend the greater part of the night in the company of other women and at various summer resorts, beaches, restaurants, and theaters."

Thereafter the defendant newspaper published the following article, which forms the basis of this action for libel:

"Salt Shaker Broke Wedded Harmony, Wife Declares.

"Slugged with a Salt Shaker, Struck in the Face, Eyes Blackened, and Eyeglasses Broken, ad lib.

"All of these little things are alleged to have completely spoiled the connubial harmony of Mr. and Mrs. Alvin Paul Hines, according to a petition for divorce filed yesterday in the District Supreme Court by Mrs. Hines.

"The wife declares her husband frequently goes out and spends the greater part of the night in the company of other women. Mr. and Mrs. Hines were married in 1900. They have two children."

At the trial the plaintiff expressly waived any claim for punitive damages; that is, he conceded the absence of express malice. The defendant, both at the close of plaintiff's evidence and at the close of all the evidence, moved for a directed verdict upon the ground that the publication, taken as a whole, was a fair and substantially correct reproduction of the bill in equity filed by the wife, and therefore privileged. But the court, over the objection and exception of the defendant, submitted to the jury the question whether the words "Slugged with a Salt Shaker" and "Struck in the Face, Eyes Blackened, and Eyeglasses Broken, ad lib.," were justified.

As to the words "Slugged with a Salt Shaker," the court suggested that in the bill filed in the divorce case "the only allegation in it in connection with the salt cellar is that there was an assault but not an assault and battery." As to the second statement, the court left it to the jury to say "whether or not the allegations in that bill divorce case are fairly summarized in one respect by saying the thing was done at pleasure; this sort of thing was done at pleasure."

In Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner, 250 U. S. 290, 293, 39 S. Ct. 448, 63 L. Ed. 987, the following rule stated by Judge Lurton, later a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Commercial Publishing Co. v. Smith, 149 F. 704, 706, 707, 79 C. C. A. 410, 412, 413, was approved: "A publication claimed to be defamatory must be read and construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. So the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construed together, and its meaning and signification thus determined. When thus read, if its meaning is so unambiguous as to reasonably bear but one interpretation, it is for the judge to say whether that signification is defamatory or not. If, upon the other hand, it is capable of two meanings, one of which would be libelous and actionable, and the other not, it is for...