Wheaton v. Beecher

• Decision Date: 20 February 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 927,79 Mich. 443
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WHEATON v. BEECHER.

44 N.W. 927

79 Mich. 443

WHEATON v. BEECHER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 20, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county.

Action by William W. Wheaton against Luther Beecher for libel. For statement of facts and report of former trial, see 33 N.W 503. The contempt proceedings referred to in the opinion were certain proceedings instituted against plaintiff during the trial for contempt in failing to produce certain books and papers which were alleged to be in his possession, and which he was ordered to produce. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

E. H. Sellers, (Wm. P. Wells of counsel,) for appellant.

Atkinson, Carpenter, Brooke & Haigh, John Atkinson, and Henry M. Cheern, for appellee.

CAMPBELL J.

This case was before us, and reported in 66 Mich. 307. ^[1] It was there held the publication sued upon was actionable and that there was some evidence tending to show publication. We need not repeat the facts there referred to. Subsequently a notice of justification was put in, of a general character. Proofs were on a new trial received without objection, or at least without exception, which it is stated in the record had a tendency to show justification. The form of the notice is not, therefore, important upon the question whether evidence was receivable under it. It may have a bearing on another question. Evidence was also received, under objection, of rumors of various kinds, on which errors are alleged. The errors assigned relate to the proof of publication, to the proof of discreditable rumors, to allowing certain contempt proceedings during the trial, and to errors in the charge given or refused. The jury found for defendant. It is altogether probable, from the very slight testimony on that point, that the verdict was based on Mr. Beecher's innocence of procuring the publication; and upon that question the facts were submitted to the jury under a charge to which some exception was taken. But, as it is possible other things were considered, we must look at the errors assigned on all the exceptions, so far as necessary.

The first assignment of error covers two answers allowed to be given,-one on cross-examination of a witness for plaintiff (who was the person that wrote and handed to the newspaper the libel as it was printed,) and on the direct examination of defendant. Mr. May was asked: "Did Mr Beecher, so far as your knowledge goes, have anything to do with the publication of that article?" He answered "Not to my knowledge." Mr. Beecher was asked: "Had you anything to do in any way, shape, or manner, with the publication of that article?" He answered: "No." So far as Mr. Beecher is concerned, we can see no reason why the question and answer were not entirely pertinent and proper. The objection urged to Mr. May's testimony is that the term "publication" embraces the entire means whereby libelous matter is made public, and includes a result which should be left to the jury. This is somewhat nicely put, but we do not think it applies to the case. "Publication," in its ordinary and popular sense, has a narrower meaning than its technical legal meaning, and one which, in view of what the witness testified, was not calculated to mislead any one. He testified fully to his interview with Mr. Beecher in which the offensive remarks were drawn out by his own inquiries. He testified that he subsequently committed the conversation to writing, and handed it into the printing-office without showing it to Mr. Beecher, and without his request or procurement, unless a desire for it could be inferred from the circumstances of the interview itself. Having been fully examined on the facts, from which, so far as significant, the jury could draw their own conclusions, the question put must have been fairly understood as relating to the procurement of publication or printing in the newspaper, and was a very proper one. Even had it been ambiguous, it is hard to see why, with the context of the examination, it could have created any false impression. The same criticism is made on a portion of the charge in which reference is made to the fact that there is no testimony that Beecher published, or caused to be published, the libel in question, but that of himself and May; that...