The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-02-06
APPEAL DISMISSED
Mrs. Mitchell Gets No
Damages.
Her Action in Law Against Fred w.
Sharon Is Dismissed by the
Court of Appeals.

Judges Gilbert and McKenna sitting in
the United States Court Of Appeals rem
dered an opinion yesterday in the case of
Sarah Mitchell vs.. Frederick w. Sharon.
The opinion was written by United States
Circuit Judges Gilbert, Ross and Hanford
aud was delivered by Judge Gilbert.
The case of Mrs. Mitchell was an action
to recover damages for the words uttered
concerning her by the defendant. which
were said to be slanderous, and was an
appeal from the United States Circuit
Court against sustaining demurrer on
the ground that the words were not
aciionable.
The following were the words used:
Asked whether he had ever seen the
plaintiff the defendant answered: "Never,
and l know very little about her. From
what l do know / can only regard her
proposition for money for the letters as
matchmaking scheme pure and simple. L
have never received any communication
from her. but from what | hear l suppose
she has made demands upon the estate for
money. Those demands have not been
regarded as anything more than mere talk,
tue vapld emanati0DS from an idle mind.
She will wait a long time before she gets
anything out of the Sharon estate for sup
pressing such information as she may
possess. am often approached by people
who talk mysterlousiy about revealing
matters that would be detrimental to the
Sharon estate IL made public, but always
send them away as soon as they begin to
make blacSmailing demands"
The court said in substance: lit is con-
tended by the plaintiff that in using the
words quoted the defendant intended to
class the plaintiff with persons who rad
made Matchmaking demands upon the
sharon and nv ImnllPatIOn
that she was also a blackmailer. We find
no warrant for holding the words were so
meant by the speaker or could have been
SO understood by the auditor"
Later on the court SAYS: Upon consid-
Grafton of all the defendants words IL is
impossible TO find in them the charge that
The plaintiff has made a blackmailng de-
! mand upon the Sharon tale, or that she
has made a threat to publish the letters.
The judgment is affirmed. with costs to
the appellee"
The case OF Mrs. Mitchell was brought
into court in July. 1891. 1t was an offshoot
of the famous Sharnn-Hill litigation, and
| aroused quite a sensational interest at the
time. The history of it is as follows:
On Thursday. July %, 1891, it was made
known 10 the public that Mrs. Sarah b.
Mitchell had IN her possession certain let
teIs which IL is clalWed would reflect Sc
riousiy on the character and reputation of
| Frederick w. Sharon, Francs q. New
lands, Justice Field and several other
prominent persOnages. The document
came into Mrs. Mitchelrs hands through
Charles II. Livingstone, who was at enc
time manager of the Palace Hotel. and who
had been In one way or another associated
with the several parties 10 the Sharon
suit, including Justice Field.
1t was represented at the time that Mrs.
Mitchell had used the letters in an en-
deavOr 10 extort money from several of
the parties concerned. She was said TO
have offered to dispose OF them TO the
Sharon people for various sums. ranging
from $4,000 down to $4,000. According
to the story told. one OF the letters written
by MIR. Livingstone himself, would go
to prove that the Sharon people were in
debted 10 the writer in the sum of 10000
for various services rendered, particularly
in bringing about favorable decision in
the defense against Sarah Althaa. An
other letter, written by Justice Field, was
supposed To have proved the latter had
written to Mr.. Livingstone soliciting him
to procure Buckley's interference in the
same Sharcn-Hill case.
justice Field Indignantly denied such
charge against him. Sharon and Newlands
then represented that the whole matter
amounted to nothing more than a black
mail scheme. Sharon was publicly inter-
viewed on July % aud expressed himself
in the words involved in the decision Of
yesterday and quoted above.
Mrs. Mitchell, through her attorney, II.
Ii. Davis, at once filed suit for 500. 600
damages for SANDER. This was on July 81.
Interviewed in regard to the matter she
acknowledged the possession of certain
important letters willed 10 her by Mr.. Liy-
ingstone, but denied that she had ever
used them for intimidating or extortiDg
money from any one. She vaguely limited,
however. that the publication of them
would not be welcome to certain persons.
Mr.. Livingstone had been a warm per-
sonsl friend of her husband and had taken
the supervision of his property at the time
of the laiter's death. In this way she had
become intimate with him and had re-
ceived. the box of papers in trust from him
at the time of his own death.
After the receipt of the letters Mrs.
Mitchell had at no time spoken of their
contents, save possibly tn let fall by
chance the fact that some of them related
to Justice Field, MIR. Sharon and Mr.. New
lands. She had been approached several
times by persons with requests to give
them up. but had steadfastly refused to do
so. TIE charge that she had used them for
Matchmaking purposes she resented as a
serious injustice, claiming that she was a
woman of means who could not possibly
have motive for such action.
The SANDER suit failed in the United
States Circuit Court and was appealed to
the Court of Appeals. The unfavorable de-
cision of yesterday, therefore. throws it
finally out of litigation.
Academy of Sciences.
hn f1nn sNf h1