King v. Northeastern Pub. Co‪.‬

QUA, Justice. The defendant published on the first page of the 'Daily Record' a photograph of the plaintiff, an unmarried woman, under which appeared the following: '$10,000 Suit: Mildred King, who first gained fame as the 'love mate' for George Huntington Hartford, wealthy Harvard Student, yesterday filed a suit in Suffolk Court against the estate of Alfred DeVote, her former music teacher.' There was also a reference to 'Story on Page 3.' On page 3 was another photograph of the plaintiff, bearing her name, and in connection therewith was an article headed 'PLAYBOY'S RED-HEAD 'ANGEL' IN SUIT Beauty says 'Prof' Took Her Cash Mildred King Files $10,000 Action.' The body of the article began: 'Mildred King, beautiful auburn-haired Southern girl, who supplied the 'love interlude' for George Huntington Hartford, Harvard student, and scion of a wealthy and socially prominent Newport family, and sued them for $100,000 for her services in keeping the youth from the snares of sirens, yesterday entered another legal tilt.' Then follows an account of an action which the plaintiff had brought against the estate of one DeVote, her former music teacher, to recover a sum of money which she claimed he had taken to invest for her. The defendant excepts to the refusal of the Judge to direct a verdict in its favor and to his refusal to grant requests for rulings which in so far as they have been argued are in substance to the effect that the publication as a whole and various specified portions of it were not libellous and did not charge the plaintiff with being 'unchaste,' 'without virtue,' or 'with having committed the crime of fornication.' The Judge charged the jury, so far as appears without exception by either party, that the publication would not be libellous and that the plaintiff could not recover, if the jury found that 'the ordinary reader, who read the article without any previous knowledge of the circumstances to which it relates' would not understand it to 'be either an imputation of unchastity or the imputation of the crime of fornication.' Taking the case in the shape in which it now comes to us, the question to be decided is whether we can say that the jury, acting in accordance with their oaths, could not come to the Conclusion that this publication would be reasonably understood as charging unchastity or fornication. It is now well settled that the character of a publication as being libellous or otherwise is not to be Judged by what we ourselves would understand it to mean, but that commonly the question is one of fact, and that the court can rule as matter of law that the publication is not libellous and can withdraw the case from the jury only when it is apparent 'that the publication is not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning, and cannot reasonably be capable of any defamatory sense.' Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass. 464, 469; Morgan v. Repulican Publishing Co., 249 Mass. 388, 144 N.E. 221; Riceman v. Union Indemnity Co., 278 Mass. 149, 152, 179 N.E. 629; Lyman v. New England Newspaper Publishing Co., 286 Mass. 258, 261, 190 N.E. 542, 92 A.L.R. 1124; Compare The Capital & Counties Bank, Ltd., v. George Henty & Sons, 7 A.C. 741.