The Great Falls leader. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1888-1900, 1888-12-04
osERRULING OF DEMURREp IN
vs. TRIBUNE PUBLISHING ca.
Oral Decision by Bach. A. =.

III tne case of Ray VS.. Tribune Publish.
ing Company, after looking into the
autnorltles, l am still of the opinion that
counsel for the defendant has applied
Tue rules OF slander to the rules of libel
AS l understand the question. slandar ia
deianatory matter addressed to the ear
ana there are four kinds of it. There ia
tne hrst which charges one that an in
ulctable offence involving moral turni-
tude. Then there is second one whic h
cnarges one with having an infectious
uisease tending to exclude one from So
clety. The third division includes charges
tending to injure person in his trade
employment or profession. Those three
are termed SANDER per Sc, and the defen-
dant is entitled at least to nominal dam
ages. There is still another class of slan-
Ger which is known as slander with
special damage, and that is any defama-
'ory charge which results in damage to
the one slandered. Now, libel is quite =
oi1erent matter. 1t consists of some
thing affecting mans reputation. and it
is addressed to the eye, such as printed
or written libels, pictures, signs and the
ike, placing him in an odious or ridicn-
lous light and thereby damaging his rep-
atatlon-and it is true whether the man
oe alive or whether he is dead. In other
words, to put the matter briefly, all mat
ter which is slanderous would he libelous
II printed; but a charge may be the sub
1ect OF an action for libel, and yet not be
sufficient to sustain an action for slander
1or words spoken. For instance. takine
the division of SANDER which is known as
SANDER with special damages. A ma
llclous and false statement, If not includ-
ed IN the first three divisions Of SANDER
may be made orally and resulting in no
damage would not be the subject of nm
action; but in print it would be the sinh
1ect OF civil action, at least for nominal
damages, if it tended to iniure the renn-
tation OF him concerning whom it was
written or to place him before the nublic
in an odious or ridiculous light.
These distinctions are very clearly
drawn in the E lition of Blackstone. pre-
pared by Prof. Chase, of Columbia col
lege. Mr.. Chase says in note: Charges
OF certain crimes may safely be made
orally which would be actionable If
written.
There is still another distinction he
tween slander and libel which is well
known. The libel subjects the person to
! criminal action as well as an action for
damages in civil suit. think that the
defendant has confounded the case with
SANDER for special damages and thinks
hat the action is not maintainable unless
he plaintiff alleges some special damages
which resulted from the use of the word.
l apprehend that that is not the rule.
The rule is that any word printed which
would tend to hold up the plaintiff in an
'dious or ridiculous light, or subject him
% rldlcule or contempt in the eyes of the
public, such word or words are sufficient
o sustain an action Of libel if they are
printed. | think the words here in the
complaint are sufficient to accomplish
hat object. To call man 'blather-
kite" to accuse him of being the author
# an anonymous libel is not calculated +,
Q increase the public respect for him.
70 call him the other names which were
pplied to him in that article is calculat-
d to subject him to public contempt and ,
decribing him in a very odious light; =
therefore, the printed matter becomes the
ubject for civil action for damages as I
7ell as a criminal action if it is false.
would call attention of counsel also
} case which lays down this doctrine
! state Of facts very similar to those
l the case at bar.
See Colley VS.. Reynolds Fl American. '
574 (G Yer. 489.) Il
Demurrer overruled. a
THOs. G.. BACH. .Tndge.