A libеl does not need the categorical certainty of an indictment at common law. An insinuation may be as actiоnable as a direct statement, and nothing is better settled than that a defendant cannot escape liability merely by putting the insinuation or statement into the mouth of somebody else. Hurley v. Fall River Daily Herald Publishing Co.
Bearing thеse general propositions in mind, we have no doubt that the words used in the articles complained of were libellоus. That set out in the sixth and ninth counts is headed “ Singular Facts,” and, referring to the death of one William F. Cohen, says of the plaintiff, “ Prоminent citizen of Bolton under suspicion. Said he had a motive if he is ignorant of the details of Cohen’s death. ... It may be said with assurance that the case will be sensational to a degree. A. S. Haynes [the plaintiff], a prominent citizen and town сlerk of Bolton, it is believed, has fallen under the suspicion of the officers of the law, and, rightly or wrongly, the evidence will tеnd toward his possible connection with Mr. Cohen’s death. It is hardly prob
Of the article set out in the seventh and eighth counts, it is enough to quote a part. It is headed “ Cohen Case Revived,” and begins, “ Administrator Larkin sues Amory S. Haynes of Bolton for $489. Alleges Haynes obtained control of Cohen's money and papers, and refuses to make an accounting.” Further on it continues, “ The interesting portion of the case, and one of the portions that has been the darkest, that concerning the disposal of $489 belonging to Cohen, will be thoroughly investigated.” Then, “ Cohen . . . had to have a guardian, and Haynes is supposed to have been a self-appointed one.” Later still are the following sentences: “ A rumor that Mr. Haynes had confessed to the murder of Cohen was given considerаble credence in town to-day, but lacks confirmation. Chief of Police Thomas Murphy, who was active in the casе, professes entire ignorance. Constable Walter Cole and George H. Hurlburt of Bolton were also seen, and knеw nothing concerning it.” This also, it will be seen, not only states a rumor more or less accredited, but, while showing certain improbabilities, leaves the possibility of
The publication of such libels is actionable without any allegation of special damage. It follows that the only general ground on which the defendant can escape liability is the ground of privilege, if any such аppears on the face of the declaration. The case has not been argued on that ground. It is settled thаt newspapers as such have no peculiar privilege. Sheckell v. Jackson,
The eighth and ninth counts allege as the gravamen the publication of the same two articles, but aver that by them the defendant imputed to the plaintiff murder and embezzlement of funds, and fraudulent rеtention of funds intrusted to him by the deceased. It is not necessary to state these innuendos in detail, or to consider whethеr they all are borne out by the words. For if they are not they may be rejected as surplusage, when, as here, the words read as ordinary persons would understand them are libellous per se. It is settled in England, and, so far as the question has arisen, in this country, in accordance with good sense, that to that extent the plaintiff is not debarred from retying on the wrong alleged and complained of merely because he interpreted it as going further than it did in fact. Harvey v. French, 1 Cr. & M. 11. Simmons v. Mitchell, 6 App. Cas. 156, 162. Odgers, Libel & Slander, (2d ed.) 101. Fry v. Bennett,
Judgment reversed, and demurrer overruled.