International Fraternal Alliance v. Mallalieu

Roberts, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There are nominally two appeals in this record, both of which are taken from a judgment of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, entered upon a verdict rendered in an action ■of libel, wherein the two appellants here were held jointly liable, the World Publishing Company for the publication of the alleged libel and the Fraternal Alliance for having procured the same to be written and published. Whilst two appeals have been taken, they are in point of fact and in substance but one and they will be so considered. The appellee brought his action against the two appellants, both of which are bodies corporate, under the Public General Laws of the State, and also against George Hardesty and Charles H. Unverzagt.

The libel complained of in this case was published by the appellant, the World Newspaper Company, and as stated in the declaration, is as follows: ■“ That the defendants, knowing the fact that the plaintiff was a canvasser for insurance and a collector for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York, wickedly and maliciously did compose and publish and caused to be com ⁹⁹ posed and published of and concerning the plaintiff, in relation to his said business, in a newspaper called 'The World,’ a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel, containing among other things the following: ' The public is also warned against a man named Mallalieu (thereby meaning the plaintiff), connected with the Metropolitan (thereby meaning the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York), who is saying that the International (thereby meaning the defendant corporation, the International Fraternal Alliance of Baltimore City) has an unpaid claim, &c., another lie (thereby meaning that the statement so as aforesaid attributed to the plaintiff, was a lie). This man says that he is employed expressly to break up international business. His lying methods will be shown up if reported to the company.’ ” Issue was joined on the plea of non cul. and the case was tried before a jury. The verdict being against the defendants, who are the appellants here, they have appealed from the judgment of the Court below.

The only exceptions contained in the record relate to the granting of the instructions asked for by the appellee and the refusal of the Court to grant the prayers of the appellants, except as hereinafter indicated. It is not contended that the publication complained of is not libelous per se. This being so, we shall not further concern ourselves as to the real character of the publication. At the close of the case of the plaintiff below (appellee here) three of che defendants below, the Alliance, .Hardesty and Unverzagt offered four prayers, which substantially asked the Court to instruct the jury that plaintiff had not offered any testimony legally sufficient to entitle him to a verdict against them.

The first, third and fourth prayers were rejected by the Court and the second was granted on the ground that the plaintiff had offered no legally sufficient evidence to show that said Hardesty and Unverzagt composed and published the statement set out in the declaration. We come now to the consideration of the question as to ¹⁰⁰ who is liable for the publication of the alleged libel or as. against whom does the responsibility attach in the procurement of such publication. Mr. Odgers in his work on Libel and Slander, p. 294, says, “In cases of libel every one concerned either in writing or publishing the libel, or in causing or procuring the libel to be written or published, is. equally liable for all the damage consequent on that publication. They are all deemed publishers.

Thus, if the libel appear in a newspaper, the proprietor, the editor,