Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1918-06-28

Bariina Witteveen as result of the
disclosure of her secret which she was
led to tell to Mrs. Humiston by this
heading in the Evening Journal:
Girls in Trouble Urged to Confide in
Mrs. Humiston-She Promises to Keep
Stories Secret"
Miss Witteveen said she was led by
the promise" of secrecy to coniide IN
Mrs. Humiston, telling her in the
course of the story that she was
known to her friends as "Dena.' Sub
sequently, she said. the story appear
ed in the Evening Journal she herself
being designated as "Dena." This, she
asserted. was 'willful, reckless and
wanton" publication of privileged
communication and held her up 10
public shame, infamy and contempt.
In starting her action for alleged
conspiracy Miss Witteveen expressed
the opinion that Mr.. Hearsts advice
to young girls TO confide in Mrs.
Humiston was merely a means TO OBJ
tain sensational stories" Justice
Erlanger, in dismissing the demurrer,
called attention to the published prom
Use that confidence would not be
abused and said:
THE complaint contains averments
that the defendants conspired to-
gether to bring about this breach OF
confidence resulting in the publica-
ton Clearly, upon this state of facts,
the law should not be at loss to find
a cause of action against the attorney
and the newspaper proprietor whose
common enterprise was thus conduct
ed. AS to the attorney, if this COM
plant is true, the right of action is
plain The Star Company, to support
its demurrer, points to the allegation
that matter published was true. So,
it argues, there was no libel, and
there being conspiracy indicated other
than to libel, the conspiracy could not
be said to have been carried out, in
the absence of an untrue publication
| Granting that the truth of the matter
| published is shown by the complaint,
and that the allegations which suggest
untruth-through resort to certain in
nuendoes-are not supported by rea-
| sonable meaning of the words of the
| article, the pleading is still sufficient
in my opinion
1.-THE action is not for libel. 1t is for
| conspiracy, and may be supported by
| facts showing a combination by two
or more persons to do an unlawful act,
| which has been accomplished with
| damage to the person whose rights
were invaded Here the unlawful act,
/ nv lnfandontc and
accomplished, was the publication CT
defamatory matter concerning the
plaintiff. The purpose of the publica-
ton was not to be delicately taken as
confined to publication which might
or might not be the subject of civil
suit for libel. The truth of the publ
cation would be a sufficient defense
to an action of that class, but the I'M
lawful character of the act still re-
mains unless the defamatory matter
not only was true, but was publish
ed with good motives and justifiable
ends
ut is upon this ground that the COM
| plant states a case, since the subject
of the conspiracy-the- intended and
accomplished defaming of the plain
tiff for the defendants profit in bust
ness-was within the inhibition of the
penal law.
Truth in the publication made the
offense no less, for upon the facts al
4 legged and admitted by the demurrer
the motives were bad, the ends unjusti-
fable and malice, so far as necessary,
was presumed.
Buy War Savings stamps