Weeks v. News Pub. Co.

• Citation: 83 A. 162,117 Md. 126
• Parties: WEEKS v. NEWS PUB. CO.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1912
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

83 A. 162

117 Md. 126

WEEKS v. NEWS PUB. CO.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 9, 1912

Appeal from Baltimore City Court.

Action by Thomas C. Weeks against the News Publishing Company. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the declaration plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. Booker Clift, for appellant. Leon E. Greenbaum, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

This was an action for libel against Frank A. Munsey, proprietor of the Baltimore News, and the News Publishing Company, a corporation, and the appeal is from a judgment on demurrer to the declaration in favor of the defendant the News Publishing Company; process not having been served on the other defendant. The narr. alleges that the plaintiff was "an attorney at law in good standing and repute in the practice of his profession in the courts of Baltimore city and elsewhere," and enjoyed in the community "a reputation as a moral. law-abiding, and respectable citizen *** of professional integrity and honesty in the practice of law," and that the defendants on the 1st day of April 1911, "falsely and maliciously printed and published and caused to be printed and published, of and concerning the plaintiff individually and in his professional capacity as an attorney at law" in the Baltimore News, "a daily journal published in the city of Baltimore, the following false, malicious and wicked libel, to wit:

"'There is a good old adage that you can judge a man by the company he keeps, and this ought to hold good in politics. A man may not be responsible if a black sheep here and there becomes his adherent, but when the "line up" is as general in character as in the present primary contest, it must be accepted as defining a candidate's status. I believe I am correct in putting down the following list as Mr. Preston's friends: "Judge Bill" Garland, "Hon." Harry Wolf, and "Tom" Weeks, counsel for "Willie" Downs; "Sonny" Mahon; "The" Kelly; "Bob" Padgett; "Hon." George Konig; all the "Gas" Councilmen, including those indicted by the Grand Jury.

"'We can safely add to this "company" an almost unanimous vote of the disreputable saloons, the gambling hells, the bawdyhouses, and others of that ilk who, from the nature of their trade, require "protection" from those higher up.

"'In lining this gentry up for Mr. Preston I don't think I am crediting him with any Mahool votes. Now, what is the exhibit on the other side? Mr. Mahool cannot lay claim to please any of the "elements" I have named, but he seems to have lined up with the great body of citizens who have never made politics a business, the sober working-men, the small business men and those of our leading citizens who have been free from political graft. He has also the bulk of the "Old Guard" who fought with Wallis against the gentry I have enumerated; in fact, he has such a large majority of the decent people with him that the ward heelers, toughs and criminal classes hate him. "We love him for the enemies he has made" in the cause of right and Justice.

"'Baltimore, March 30."' The declaration then charges that the defendants meant by said publication "that the said plaintiff, speaking of him individually and as an attorney at law as a 'black sheep,' was a man of criminal character and unfit to practice his profession as an attorney at law, as one belonging to the criminal classes, and as of the company of keepers of disreputable saloons, gambling hells, bawdyhouses, and others of that ilk, who from the nature of their trade require protection from those higher up, and intending thereby to bring the plaintiff into public scorn, contumely, and disrepute among his neighbors, clients, and acquaintances." To an honest and good man, who has won and enjoys public confidence and esteem, honor and character are no less sacred than life or property, and it is as much the duty of others to respect his title to the former as it is their obligation to avoid violating his right to the latter, and the law should be ample for their protection. There can be no doubt that if the article complained of contained a false charge that the plaintiff "was a man of criminal character and unfit to practice his profession," or that he "belonged to the criminal classes," such as "keepers of disreputable saloons, gambling hells and bawdyhouses," it would be libelous.

Indeed, it may be stated as the settled law of this state that, in order to constitute a libel, it is not necessary that the publication should charge one with the commission of a crime or with having a contagious disease, but any words which impute to him conduct or qualities tending to injure his character, or to degrade him, or which expose him to contempt, ridicule, or public hatred, are per se libelous. In the case of Hagan v. Hendry, 18 Md. 191, Chief Judge Bowie quotes the statement in 1 Amer. Lead. Cases, 116 (Ed. of 1857), that "any publication injurious to the social character of another, and not shown to be true, or to have been justifiably made, is actionable as a false and malicious libel." In the case of Snyder v. Fulton, 34 Md. 135, 6 Am. Rep. 314, Chief Judge Bartol adopts the view of Chancellor Kent (1 Kent's Comm. 620) that "expressions which tend to render a man ridiculous, or degrade him in the esteem and opinion of the world, would be libelous if printed, though they would not be actionable if spoken. So, if they tend to injure his reputation and expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule." And in the more recent case of Goldsborough v. Orem & Johnson, 103 Md. 681, 64 A. 40, this court, speaking through Judge Burke, said: "A false and malicious printed or written publication which imputes conduct, or qualities tending to disparage, or degrade the plaintiff, or expose him to contempt, ridicule or public hatred, or prejudice his private character, or credit are libelous per se." Similar statements may be found in White v. Nickolls, 3 How. 266, 11 L.Ed. 591; Odgers on Libel and Slander, star pages 19 and 20; and 13 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) pp. 299, 220, where many cases, English and American, are cited in support of the rule.

But the real question presented by the demurrer in this case is not whether it is actionable to publish of an attorney at law a statement that he is a man of criminal character and unfit to practice his profession, or that he belongs to the criminal classes, but whether the article referred to is susceptible of the meaning ascribed to it in the declaration.

The demurrer admits that the article was published by the defendant, and that it is false and malicious; but it does not admit that the words published in themselves, or as explained by the innuendo, are actionable, nor does it admit that they are, when read by themselves, or in connection with the inducement and colloquium, capable of the meaning ascribed to them in the innuendo. If it be conceded that the article, as interpreted by the innuendo, is actionable, the question whether the innuendo is good--that is to say, whether it is fairly warranted by the article when read in connection with the inducement and colloquium--still remains as a matter of law for the court.

It is the office of the innuendo to explain the words of the libel and to give to them their true meaning. It cannot, however, introduce new matter or enlarge or add to the sense of the words declared on, or properly impute to them a meaning not justified by the publication, either when taken alone or in connection with the inducement and colloquium. Lewis v. Daily News Co., 81 Md. 466, 32 A. 246, 29 L. R. A. 59; Dorsey v. Whipps, 8 Gill, 462; Haines v. Campbell, 74 Md. 158, 21 A. 702, 28 Am. St. Rep. 240; ...