Wood v. Boyle

• Decision Date: 05 October 1896
• Docket Number: 278
• Citation: 35 A. 853,177 Pa. 620
• Parties: A. D. Wood v. P. C. Boyle, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

35 A. 853

177 Pa. 620

A. D. Wood v. P. C. Boyle, Appellant

No. 278

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 5, 1896

Argued May 5, 1896

Appeal, No. 278, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Warren Co., March T., 1895, No. 6, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Trespass for libel. Before NOYES, P.J.

At the trial it appeared that A. D. Wood was a manager of the Producers' Oil Company, Limited, a company engaged in the business of transporting oil by pipe line. On April 11, 1894 the defendant's paper, the Oil City Derrick, published the following article:

"A PROMISING SCHEME."

"A D. Wood, the variously notorious young Napoleon of politics and pipe lines, will assembly his small brood at Warren this morning, and together vote on the proposition to turn over the Producers' Oil Company's real pipe line to the refiners and exporters doing business as the fake United States Pipe Line, a concern that exists on paper and subsists on wind. Mr. Wood has accomplished some surprising things in his day. Without a following in politics, he has set up a political boss; without brains or capital or credit, he has appeared at the head of a gigantic business enterprise requiring liberal bank balances and a large mental endowment. He never yet has succeeded in anything he has undertaken involving the peace and prosperity of the community, for the excellent reason that he is invariably associated with movements that ought not to succeed. We dare say that his scheme to steal a pipe line from the poor producers in order to give it to the opulent refiners and arrogant exporters masquerading as the United States Pipe Line, will fail, as it properly should. It would seem that there is no limit to the greed of this fiend in corporate form, the insatiate monster called United States Pipe Line. Up in McKean county it has Billee Burdick, the boy statesman, running for assembly, and if he is elected the refiners and exporters' pipe line will have a personal representative in the legislature. This is a good place to say much and saw Wood. Saw his official head off."

A. D Wood resided in the borough of Warren, county of Warren, Pennsylvania, and some time in the month of May, 1894, he made a complaint charging the defendant with criminal libel, and caused a warrant to be issued for his arrest, which was served in Oil City, Venango county, Pennsylvania. Defendant gave bail for his appearance at June term, 1894, in the court of quarter sessions of Warren county. An indictment was found against him in the court of quarter sessions of Warren county, and the case was tried at the term commencing the first Monday of December, 1894, and resulted in a verdict of acquittal on the evening of December 6, 1894, just before court adjourned. On the morning of the 7th, Mr. Boyle entered the courthouse, and while waiting for court to convene in order that he might be discharged, he was called into the rear room and taken into custody by the sheriff on the capias issued in this case. Application was immediately made to the court to set aside the service of said capias on the ground of privilege, and a rule to show cause was granted, which rule was afterwards discharged by the court. [1]

The court charged in part as follows:

There is evidence tending to show that he (the defendant) is the editor and publisher of a newspaper called the Oil City Derrick, in which the article appeared; that copies of that paper were received regularly in Warren; that one of the copies which is alleged to have been sent out from the office at Oil City to the agent in Warren, and by him delivered to the subscribers, is presented to you. If you find that this paper is one of the edition published in Oil City, and was so delivered and published by the defendant, then he has published the article within this county.

[The next question is whether or not the article is libelous in character. And this presents the first question of law. It is for the court to read the article and to say whether its terms, on its face, come within the definition of a libel. And I am bound by my duty to say to you, gentlemen, that this article is libelous; that it has a tendency to defame the character and to lower the reputation of the person about whom it is written; it has the tendency described in the definition which I have read and also the definition of our act of assembly, and hence it is a libel on its face, and the publisher of the article is liable to the person about whom it is written or published in damages, unless it is privileged -- published on a privileged occasion -- and he has shown the absence of malice, or the want of malice appears in the evidence.]

[The declaration, which I understand is mislaid and not here, contains certain parenthetical clauses in the quotation of the article, referring it to the plaintiff, and tending to define the article and give its clear meaning. Those are for you. It is for you to say whether A. D. Wood is the party about whom it is written. His name is used here -- Is this the same person about whom it is written? If you find that he is, and this article was published in this county concerning Mr. Wood, then I say to you it is a libel, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover some damages, unless something appears in the way of defense.] And as to this the first question is whether or not the article was privileged. You will perhaps require some explanation about that.

The press is free in this county, so is speech. It is perfectly free for any person to write or speak anything that he sees proper. There is no power in the government to restrain him from so doing, but he does it, under the constitution, subject to his responsibility. It does not relieve him if he publishes a libel, from any sort of responsibility for what he does. There are occasions when it is justifiable and proper for a man to make statements, either verbally, or in writing, or by printing, concerning another, which may tend to blacken his character or to defame him. As an example of that, I may call attention to the case of a person who is a candidate for a public office of trust. . . .

Now the rule which I have spoken of concerning public officers applies to persons acting in a public character or relation. Sometimes an individual not a candidate for office may occupy such a position respecting the public that his conduct and his intentions and character generally become legitimate subjects of public information. . . . But although a person may be a candidate for office, or be occupying a public station, an officer of a corporation, or anything of that sort, and in that character subject to public criticism, he is not so subject to it in his private character or respecting private matters about which the public have no interest.

In this case, gentlemen, there has been some evidence given tending to show that the Producers' Oil Company, which is referred to in the article, was a limited partnership, so called -- a joint stock company; that it had a pipe line for the transportation of oil; that it was taking oil from its stockholders and some other people, under some arrangement with them; that Mr. Wood was an officer of that company; that there had been a resolution passed by the managers, of whom Mr. Wood was one, to transfer some of its property, or looking to the transfer of some of its property, to the United States Pipe Line; that that transfer had been enjoined by the court of common pleas of Allegheny county, on the ground that the consent of all the stockholders was necessary; or at least that it would be illegal without such consent, or the consent of a majority of the stockholders, and that this was known to Mr. Boyle. And the attempt is made to justify this publication as privileged, under this evidence.

[I feel bound by my duty to say to you that no occasion or privilege for the publication of such an article as this is disclosed in the evidence. Whether the Producers' Oil Company, or the Producers & Refiners' Pipe Line were actually common carriers or not; whether, in other words, they were offering to do anything for the public generally, or were merely receiving oil for certain persons with whom they chose to deal; in either case, there is no such occasion of privilege as would justify the publication of an article such as this one which has been read in your hearing. The criticism is not an attack upon Mr. Wood in his character as an officer dealing with the public. It relates to the transaction of business affecting only the stockholders of the company, and in which the public had no concern at all. And the tone of the article is such that it goes outside of any privilege which might be claimed in such a suit as this.

Gentlemen, it follows from this construction that if you find that the article was published by the defendant, you must find for the plaintiff some damages. If you find it was not so published, then you must find for the defendant.] . . .

[Some evidence was given on the part of the plaintiff of statements made by Mr. Boyle concerning the reason for this publication -- not of this particular publication, but of other publications in the same direction. Also some evidence of a connection between Mr. Boyle and a company called the Derrick Publishing Company, and the connection of that company with certain other institutions, which are alleged to be rivals to the one with which Mr. Wood was concerned. This is all for you, gentlemen, as bearing all together upon the motive in the mind of Mr. Boyle; and the question whether or not he was actuated by actual ill-will and malice, and by that I mean any ill-will against Mr. Wood, personally; whether it was for mercenary purposes, a desire for gain, or done to gratify somebody else. This is a matter...