Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-10-27
LIBEL STATUTES or IOWA IN
CHAOTIC CONDITION AND NGgp
REMEpY.No.
LOWER COURTS DISAGREE
ON MANY ESoENrIAL POINTS
Decision Of Supreme Court in Snyder.
Tribune Case Show Need for Rsmsd.
iaI LeeisIation-Dis Dissenting Opinion
Indicates Lack Of Dsfinitsnsss Re-.
sarding Libel by inuendo.

Des Moines, Oct. 27.-The libel and
damage laws Of Iowa are in q chaotic
condition.; or rather the court rules and
presidents, which proceed without very
mitch direction from the code. Evidence
OF this was clearly disclosed in SUI
spreme court opinion flied Saturday
wherein the court divided and dis
pensed good deal Of law which
wouldn't stand up in = Justice shop.
The case was one in which the Sioux
City Tribune was sued by G. ]. Snyder,
q Cleshorn druggist, for damages for
libelous utterances in an article printed
nearly two years ago telling o< alleged
Immoral escapes Of young people In
Cherokee. Incidentally the article
mentioned that Snyder had been In
dicted for illegal sale Of liquor in his
store at Cleghorn.. Later. after notice
of suit had been fled, the Tribune in
cluded in a Cherokee dispatch dis
avowal that the Snyder prosecution
was connected in any way with the
orgies at Cherokee.
The case was tried before Judge
Gaynor before he went on the supreme
bench and the Jury found for the de-
Tense and that Snyder Yves not en-
titled to anything. The majority de-
cision IL by Justice Deemer and it
overrules daynor on many points but
upholds him on others. A short but
pertinent dissent was filed by Justice
Evans in which he says the majority
Of the court when al wrong, or words
to that effect.
Libel BY Inusndo.
The main disagreement seems to
have been on a question Of the libel
by inuendo feature Of the case. It
seems to be the view Of the supreme
court that the language OF the article
was ambiguous and 1t might have been
given the construction claimed for it
by Snyder, but the case was tried on
the theory that this i1uendo libel was
not in the case at all, that the Defend
ant was permitted to try the case on
the theory that the article did no more
than refer to Snyders indictment with
out coupling it up with the Cherokee
Incidents. while the plaintiff was not
permitted to show that he had no con-
nection with the Cherokee troubles.
But the court also held that the second
article printed by the Tribune. the
one disclaiming the connection Of Sny-
der with the Cherokee orgies, should
be used only in mitigation of damages
and this was not pleaded.
The dissenting opinion takes an en-
tirely different view and holds that
the article was libelous per se and
therefore no question of inuendo should
be considered. Therefore, says Justice
Evans, "the defendant was entitled to
plead tho truth of the publication In
justification and yet deny the inuendo."
He further declares the inuendo libel
could have been treated as surplusage
at all times by the defendant news
paper. The only defs7Se. he says, the
defendant has Is to plead the truth
thereof as Justification, but by the
majority opinion he is not permitted to
plead such justification unless he con-
fess the inuendo.
Court Made Laws.
The supreme court, however, did up
hold the lower court on one matter,
that Of the right Of the county attorney
Of Cherokee county to APPEAR in court
as one Of the attorneys for the de-
tense. He could not appear in civil
suit in his own county involving mat
ters coming before him as county at
torney but he could appear In another
county.
The whole decision, when studied
carefully, rather leaves the impression
that the whole question of libel Is one
Of those governed by court made laws
rather than by statute, but that the
court laws are not accepted by all the
courts and need some amendment.
While the defendant lost the case II
goes back for trial in way not likely
to end different