World Pub. Co. v. Mullen

• Decision Date: 05 December 1894
• Citation: 61 N.W. 108,43 Neb. 126
• Parties: WORLD PUB. CO. v. MULLEN.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

43 Neb. 126

61 N.W. 108

WORLD PUB. CO.

v.MULLEN.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 5, 1894.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. “The courts no longer strain to find an innocent meaning for words prima facie defamatory, neither will they put a forced construction on words which may fairly be deemed harmless.”

2. Any written or printed statement which falsely and maliciously charges another with the commission of a crime is libelous per se.

3. In determining whether the words of a publication are libelous, the courts will not resort to any technical construction of the language used, but read the language in court as they would read it elsewhere.

4. Language alleged to be libelous is to be construed in its ordinary and popular sense, and the question is whether the language, when so construed, conveys or is calculated to convey to persons reading it the charge of a crime.

5. A publication, to be libelous per se, because charging another with the commission of a crime, does not need to contain the technical statutory language and phrases essential to a good indictment for the crime charged.

6. Any language the nature and obvious meaning of which is to impute to a person the commission of a crime, or to subject him to public ridicule, ignominy, or disgrace, is actionable per se.

7. Finch v. Vifquain, 9 N. W. 43, 11 Neb. 280;Rosewater v. Hoffman, 38 N. W. 857, 24 Neb. 222, and Publishing Co. v. Ziskovsky (Neb.) 60 N. W. 358, reaffirmed. Geisler v. Brown, 6 Neb. 254, overruled.

Error to district court, Douglas county; Irvine, Judge.

Action by John S. Mullen against the World Publishing Company for libel. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Morris & Beekman and Gurley & Marple, for plaintiff in error.

Mahoney, Minahan & Smyth, for defendant in error.

RAGAN, C.

John S. Mullen brought this, a suit for libel, to the district court of Douglas county against the World Publishing Company, a corporation engaged in the publication of a newspaper in the city of Omaha, and hereinafter called the “publishing company.” There was a trial to a jury, with a verdict and judgment for Mullen, and the publishing company brings the case here for review. The evidence has not been preserved by a bill of exceptions, and there was no motion in the court below for a new trial. After the jury had returned its verdict, counsel for the publishing company moved the court for judgment upon the pleadings, notwithstanding the verdict, upon the ground that the petition of Mullen did not state a cause of action. This motion the district court overruled, and its ruling on this motion is the only assignment of error argued here. The article printed by the publishing company alleged by Mullen to be libelous, and on which he bases his suit, is in words and figures as follows: “Mullen's Insurance. The Company Declines to Pay the Risk of His Building. John S. Mullen is the plaintiff in two suits in the county court against the German Fire Insurance Company of Peoria, Ill. The suits are to recover the value of two insurance policies which Mullen held on his saloon and store in Albright, which were destroyed by fire August 31, 1890. There were a number of suspicious circumstances at the time, and it was reported that Mullen fired the buildings himself. The agent of the insurance company investigated the matter, and, as a result, the company refused to pay the insurance, which amounts to $1,900 on both policies. Mullen now brings suit, and it will be contested by the company. Its agent said it had excellent grounds for contesting the case, but refused to state what facts they were in possession of in regard to Mullen's complicity.” Mullen alleged no special damages in his petition, and it contains no colloquium or innuendo; and the argument of the publishing company is that the petition does not state a cause of action, as the language is not libelous per se. Counsel for the publishing company well say: “The courts no longer strain to find an innocent meaning for words prima facie defamatory, neither will they put a forced construction on words which may fairly be deemed harmless.” Any written or printed statement which falsely and maliciously charges another with the commission of a crime is libelous per se; and, in determining whether the words of a publication are libelous, the courts will not resort to any technical construction of the language used, but the court and the jury will read the words in court as they would read them elsewhere. Language alleged to be libelous is to be construed in its...