Case Name: Urben v. The Pittsburgh Times
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1889-01-07
Citations: 1 Monag. 135
Docket Number: No. 227
Parties: Urben v. The Pittsburgh Times.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reported
Volume: 1
Pages: 135–137

Head Matter:
Urben v. The Pittsburgh Times.
A neivspaper publication may give, as current news, such matters as involve open violation of law, or public conduct of such a character as to justify police interference, without rendering it liable for a civil action for libel, even though such publication may reflect upon the actors and tend to bring them into public disgrace or contempt.
A newspaper published a statement that Urben had been confined in an inebriate asylum, had obtained his release and gone to his home about midnight in & state of madness; that he had forced his way into the house and fired two shots at random among his family, who fled terror-stricken at his rage, while he roamed wildly about the house; that, having been disarmed by his brother, he had wandered away and was still at large. In an action for libel against the publishers, the defendant presented a point that if the jury believed from the evidence that the defendant had been confined in an inebriate asylum, had obtained his release and about midnight went to his house in a state of rage, and, immediately before or after his wife and children left the house, had a revolver in his hand, and pointed th^ same at his wife’s brother and threatened to shoot him, although he may not have fired any shot, the plaintiff could not recover. This point was affirmed. The pleas appeared to be not guilty and justification. Beld not to be error.
Oct. 31, 1888.
Error, No. 227, Oct. T. 1888, to O. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendant in an action of trespass on the case for libel, at Dec. T. 1886, No. 123.
The alleged libel was printed in the newspaper of the defendant Nov. 10, 1886, and was as follows, the first paragraph being the head-lines, printed in bold-face type:
“Anthony B. Urben’s mad rage. He takes revenge for his^ •confinement by shooting at his family.
“ Some time ago Anthony B. Urben, the druggist, was confined •as an inebriate at the Mercy Hospital at the request of his wife. He sued the Sisters for unlawfully restraining him and obtained his release about a week ago on a writ of habeas corpus. He did not go to his home until about midnight last night when he appeared there in a state of madness. He forced his way into the house and fired two shots at random among his family. They were terror-stricken at his rage and ran out into the rain, while he roamed wildly about the house.
“ His brother at last appeared and after a severe straggle disarmed him and drove him out. He wandered away again, whither is unknown, and is still at large. His family, dreading another attack, have taken refuge with his brother.”
Neither the evidence nor the pleadings were printed in the paper books, but it is stated, in the paper book of plaintiff in error, that the pleas were not guilty and justification.
The defendant presented, inter alia, the following points at the trial before Collier, J.:
“ 3. The publication by the defendant of the article upon which this action is based, if true, was proper, for public information, and •defendants had a right to publish it, although such publication tended to bring plaintiff into disgrace ana contempt.” Ans. •“Affirmed.” [1.1
“ 7. That if the jury believes the plaintiff was arrested on the night of October 17, 1886, at the house of Mrs. Hawldns, in a state of intoxication, and taken to the Central Station and detained there as a prisoner until the following morning; that from there he was taken, on the morning of October 18th, 1886, to Mercy Plospital; that by his attorney, Geo. E. Moore, he applied to this court and obtained, on October 20, 1886, a writ of habeas corpus upon which to secure his release from said hospital; that he, plaintiff, was discharged from Mercy Hospital on October 20, 1886; that the said plaintiff, about midnight of November 9th, 1886, came up stairs- in his own house in a state of rage, and that his manner was violent; that he was swearing and cursing in a loud voice; that in this con-' flition he went into the room where his wife and children were and there continued his cursing; that his wife said to him, ‘ For God’s sake, don’t — you’ll scare the children to death;’ that his manner and conduct was such that his wife and children sought refuge by running from the house in their night clothes and bare feet and taking temporary shelter from the inclement weather under an awning on the street; that the plaintiff’s conduct was such as to-warrant his arrest; and if the jury should find that plaintiff, while in his house, immediately before or after his wife and children left the same, had a revolver in his possession, and in his hand, and that he' pointed the same at his wife’s brother and threatened to shoot him, although he may not have fired any shot [still, if the defendant, from the circumstances, was led to believe that he did fife, as published in said article, and there was reasonable ground for such belief], plaintiff cannot recover, and the verdict must be for defendant.” Ans. “Affirmed, except the part in brackets, which is refused.” [2.]
The court charged, inter alia, as follows:
“ I think it entirely within the bounds of legitimate journalism for newspapers to publish, as current news, all such matters as' involve open violations of law, or public misconduct of such a character as justify police interference, even though the doing so njay reflect upon the actors and thus tend to bring them into public" disgrace or contempt.” [3.]
Verdict and judgment for defendant.
The assignments of error specified, 1-2, the answers to defendant’s points, quoting them; 3, the portion of the charge given above, quoting it; and, 4, the refusal of the court to instruct the jury that, under the pleading and evidence, their verdict should be for plaintiff.
F. C. McGirr, with him W. D. Moore, for plaintiff in error.
The publication was in no sense privileged or proper for public' information. Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 404; Press Company v. Stewart, 119 Pa. 584; Odgers on Libel and Slander, 34-52.
.’The facts alleged in defendant’s 7th point do not meet and., justify all the statements in the publication and its head lines. There' can be no such thing as half way justification. Odgers on Libel, *169; Townshend on Libel, § 212, p. 365, and cases cited; Burford v. Wible, 32 Pa. 95; Fero v. Ruscoe, 4 N. Y. 165. To sustain tbe plea of justification, the same proof is required as would be necessary to convict on an indictment for the offense charged. Steinman v. McWilliams, 6 Pa. 170.
Geo. C. Wilson, for defendant in error.
The language of the court below is in accordance with the law as declared in Press Co. v. Stewart, 119 Pa. 603, and Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 414. The information was proper for the public and the publication was privileged.
If a newspaper, without malice, and after an investigation, aims to publish only a fair and true account of an unlawful occurrence, and does publish substantially such an account, but is honestly mistaken in one or two statements, fairly to be inferred from the uncontradicted facts, will it be said that, under these circumstances, such newspaper is without protection in a suit for libel ?
Jan. 7, 1889.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
We concur in the judgment of the court below.
Judgment affirmed. A. B. W.