Black v. Union News Printing & Publishing Co.

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On May 9th, 1981, there appeared in the Jeffersonian, a newspaper published in Baltimore County, a financial statement of the county administration for the preceding year. In the same issue of that paper there appeared an editorial by which the statement mentioned was called to the attention of its readers as “the complete, detailed, minute and accurate statement, of Black & Company, certified public accountants, of Baltimore, of the expenses of Baltimore County, for the fiscal year ending December 31st, 1930.” On June 12th, 1981, the Union News, a newspaper published in Baltimore County, by the Union News Printing & Publishing Company, the appellee, published an article therein, commenting upon and criticizing the aforesaid statement appearing in the Jeffersonian, which was thought by Black & Company, the appellants, to be libelous of them, and on June 26th, 1931, they brought an action of libel thereon against the Union News Printing & Publishing Company. The plaintiff’s original declaration was demurred to and the demurrer sustained.

They then filed an amended declaration, to which no demurrer was interposed. To ⁶¹² this amended declaration, the defendants filed four pleas: Thé first, a general issue plea; the second and third, fair comment pleas; and, the fourth, a plea of limitations. There was a joinder of issue on the first, the general issue plea, and demurrers were interposed to the second and third pleas, the pleas of fair comment, and the fourth plea, the plea of limitation, was stricken out upon motion by the plaintiffs. The second plea was: “That the alleged libels are fair comment made in good faith and without malice upon a matter of public interest, namely: the ‘Annual Statement of Expenses of Baltimore County for the Fiscal Year ending December 31st, 1930,’ also known as the ‘County Statement,’ purporting to be published by the County Commissioners of Baltimore County in pursuance of section 12, of article 25 of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland (as amended by Laws 1927, c. 150) in the May 9th, 1931, issue of ‘The Jeffersonian,’ a newspaper printed and published in Baltimore County.” The third plea is like the second with the following words added thereto: “Being the newspaper referred to in said alleged libels as ‘the official organ of the Old Democratic Organization of Baltimore County,’ there being published in said May 9th, 1931, issue of ‘The Jeffersonian,’ on the editorial page thereof, the following: ‘Mr. Taxpayer, do you want to know where your money went last year?

Then turn to another section of this issue of “The Jeffersonian” and get that information, down to the spending of the last penny. Published there, in accordance with the Code of Public General Laws, in a complete, detailed, minute and accurate statement by Black and Company, Certified Public Accountants of Baltimore, of the expenses of Baltimore County for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1930.’ ” The demurrers to the second and third pleas were overruled, and the plaintiffs filed the following first and second replications to the second and third pleas: First, “That the said alleged libels are not fair comment on a matter of public interest.” Second. “That the plaintiffs ⁶¹³ did not prepare the annual statement of Baltimore County, alleged to have been commented on fairly and without malice in the libels mentioned in the declaration.” On the first of these replications there was a joinder of issue, to the second a demurrer was filed and sustained, and leave granted the plaintiffs to file an amended replication. This they failed to do, but asked that a judgment be entered against them. The defendant was told by the plaintiffs that the object and purpose of the entry of such a judgment was to enable them to appeal to this court to have it review the rulings of the trial court on the demurrer to the second replication to the second and third pleas of fair comment.

The defendant assumed that the judgment asked for by the plaintiffs was a judgment of “non pros,” and in writing objected to “any entry of judgment of ‘non pros.’ * * * and to any entry of final judgment thereon.” The plaintiffs, thereafter, obtained leave from the court to withdraw their first replication to the second and third pleas, and on April 9th, 1934, the court passed an order directing that a “final judgment * * * be entered against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendant, * * * according to the usual course of entry of judgment against a party in default in pleading.” After the entry of this judgment, the court’s attention was called by the counsel for- the defendant to the fact that, in the judgment entered by the