Notes of Recent Cases. Senge, 106 Illinois Appeals 140; Supreme Lodge Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Hutchinson, 6 Indiana Appeals 399, 33 Northeastern Reporter 1124. LITERARY CRITICISM. (LIBEL.)
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS. The decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the famous case of Triggs v. Sun Printing and Publishing Asso ciation, is reversed by the Court of Appeals in 71 Northeastern Reporter 739. This was an action for libel by Professor Triggs, an instructor in the University of Chicago, against the defendant for the publication of articles in the New York Sun, which ridi culed the professor's opinions and criticisms on literary topics. The Appellate Division held that the articles were not libelous per se, but this decision is now reversed by the Court of Appeals. The latter court concedes that when an author places his work before the public he invites criticism, and however hostile it may be the critic is not liable for libel, provided he makes no misstatements on material facts contained in the writing, and does not go out of his way to attack the author. But it is pointed out that the critic must confine himself to criticism and not make it the veil for personal censure, nor allow himself to run into reckless and un fair attacks merely for the purpose of exer cising his power of denunciation. Thus if, under the pretext of criticising a literary production or the acts of one occupying a public position, the critic takes an opportun ity to attack the author or occupant, he will be liable in an action for libel. In this case the court says it is obvious that the articles complained of go far beyond the field of fair and honest criticism, and are attempts to portray the plaintiff in a ridiculous light. They represent the plaintiff as illiterate, un cultivated, coarse, and vulgar, and his ideas as sensational, absurd, and foolish. They also represent him as egotistical and con ceited in the extreme, and convey the im pression that he makes himself ridiculous, both in his method of instruction and by his public lectures. They also ridicule his pri
777
vate life by charging that he was unable to select a name for his baby until after a year of solemn deliberation. In short, they effect to represent him as a presumptuous literary freak. These representations concerning his personal characteristics were not within the bounds of fair and honest criticism, and are clearly libelous per sc. It was contended by the respondent as a justification that the ar ticles were written in jest, but to this the court answers: If, however, they can be re garded as having- been published as a jest, then it should be said that, however desir able it may be that the readers of, and the writers for, the public prints shall be amused, it is manifest that neither such readers nor writers should be furnished such amusement at the expense of the reputation or business of another. In the language of Joy, С. В.: "The principle is clear that a person shall not be allowed to murder another's reputa tion in jest;" or, in the words of Smith, В., in the same case: "If a man in jest conveys a serious imputation, he jests at his peril." Donoghue v. Hayes [1831], Hayes, Irish Exchequer, 265, 266. We are of the opinion that one assaulting the reputation or busi ness of another in a public newspaper can not justify it upon the ground that it was a mere jest, unless it is perfectly manifest from the language employed that it could in no respect be regarded as an attack upon the reputation or business of the person to whom it related. NEWSPAPERS. (CRITICISM OF JUDICIAL ACTIONS — CONTEMPT OF COURT.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, E. D. NORTH CAROLINA.
The rights of a newspaper to criticise .a decision of a judge of the Federal Court is discussed by Pritchard, Circuit Judge, in Cuyler v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 131 Fed eral Reporter 95. The publisher of a news paper had severely criticised the District Court for its conduct in a certain action, and the editor had been cited and punished for contempt, whereupon habeas corpus proceed ings were brought for the discharge of the prisoner. The court considers Revised
