95 Mich. 164 | Mich. | 1893
This action for libel is now before this ■Court for the third time. 76 Mich. 338; 85 Id. 453. Plaintiff has again recovered, and defendant appeals.
It is urged that‘the court erred in permitting plaintiff to show that no warrant was exhibited to plaintiff, and no ■charge made or stated, when he was taken into custody. The defendant pleaded the truth of the article in justification. The article alleges that “Postmaster Wigle had
Several errors are assigned upon the refusal of the court to instruct the jury as requested. When the case was last here, we held that the article was indivisible; that the language used imputed a crime; that—
“ It is sufficient for the defendant to justify so much of the defamatory matter as constitutes the sting of the charge, and it is unnecessary to repeat and justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter, so long as the substance of the libelous charge be justified. But when the article alleged to be. libelous is indivisible, and the facts asserted are dependent on each other to impute the defamatory charge, then each material allegation must be justified, or the plaintiff will be entitled to his damages suffered on account of the portion not justified.”
The sting of this article is the’ imputation of crime. It was for the jury to say to what extent fact was poisoned by fiction, and whether the publication, by misrepresent-
On Tuesday following, defendant published the following:
“ Edward H. McAllister and Lester B. French, the men who were arrested on Saturday for trying to dispose of stamps at half price, have been released, as there was no evidence to show that they are the men who are .wanted at Bothwell.”
Defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:
“ There is nothing in the article of February 14, stating that McAllister and French had been released, fas there was no evidence to show that they were the men who Avere wanted at Bothwell/ which would authorize the jury to increase the damages in this case.
“ The article of February 14 does not mean that McAllister and French were guilty of the Bothwell burglary, and were only discharged for want of evidence.”
There was no error in refusing the requests. These parties had not been trying to dispose of stamps at half price, nor had they- been arrested for so doing.' .The arrest was unwarranted. The parties had been outraged.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.