
    Cary and another vs. Allen and another.
    Libel. (1) Requisites of complaint where words charged are of uncertain meaning. (2,3) What tvorcls are libelous.
    
    1. In an action for libel, where it is uncertain what words charged mean, and to whom they refer, the complaint should contain averments showing their meaning and their reference to the plaintiff.
    2. Words which have a direct tendency to injure a person in reputation, to degrade and disgrace him in society, and to bring him into public contempt and ridicule, are libelous.
    3. Defendants, in a newspaper article, after stating the defalcation, frauds and disappearance of one H., said: “It is currently rumored that Mrs. B. [one of the plaintiffs] has gone with H., or has some connection with his disappearance. It is said that Mrs B. left shortly before H.’s departure, ostensibly for the purpose of visiting Washington, and since that time her family have telegraphed to her and for her repeatedly, but can receive no tidings whatever of her whereabouts. H. was known to have possession of considerable of her money at the time he absconded, and the fact of her leaving and subsequent reticence, coupled with tins, has 'given rumors to the effect that they had concocted a scheme to meet at some appointed time and place, and have gone together. Por the lady’s sake it is but proper to give but little credence to such a suspicion, until further developments shall prove it well founded.” Held, libelous.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Winnebago County.
    Action for libel, originally brought by Mrs. Florence A. JBechwith, who subsequently intermarried with one Cary, who was then joined as a plaintiff in the suit. The complaint alleged that the defendants Allen and Mióles were editors, proprietors and printers of the “Daily Northwestern,” a daily newspaper published in the English language, in the city of Oshkosh, and of general circulation in that city; that plaintiff was the widow of the late Nelson Beckwith (mentioned in the article hereinafter set forth), and that she was a single woman and had been such since the death of her husband; and that defendants published, issued and put in circulation in the daily issue of their said paper the following article:
    “DEEPER DYED.”
    “ The A. II. Howard matter deepening into dark deeds. Forgery discovered. Grave suspicions of a woman at the bottom of it.
    “ The more the affairs of Asa H. Howard are developed into, and tbe deeper down tbe investigations are pushed, and tbe more that circumstances divulge, tbe more astounding are tbe facts and figures brought to light, until a clear case of tbe most hellish and diabolical fraud is unearthed that ever afflicted this part of the country. To add to the barefaced robbery which has wrung bom the widow her little mite, and from the laborer his little all, and the farmer his hard earned gains, comes the stinging revelation that he has betrayed his friends, swindled his associates, deserted his family, and. crim-inated himself under the garb of extraordinary piety, and through the hypocritical professions of morality, virtue and religion. And the matter is more stinging to those who have been gulled, from the fact that they allowed him to pull the wool over their eyes by a show of such virtues.
    
      “ It mow transpires that he has left behind him the evidences of forgery to increase still the weight of his enormities. A Mr. Brown, of Berlin, now presents a note for $1,800, made out by A. H. Howard, payable to G-. W. Shaffer, indorsed by Shaffer, and the name of W. W. Bace written across the face. Mr. Brown, or rather his daughter, Mrs. Beckwith, it appears,' bought this note of A. II. Howard, or took it as security, and now demands payment from the indorsers of the same. Both Mr. Shaffer and Mr. Bace positively declare the note a forgery, and decline to pay it. We are informed, however, on good authority, that the law will compel them to pay it, tire note now being in an innocent party’s hands. How many more of such notes or papers may yet turn up, it is, of course, impossible to tell. The liabilities begin to accumulate so fast that it i§ now figured up that the total liabilities on debts and de-. posits will not fall short of $65,000.
    “ There is another phase of the affair which .is growing current in rumor and belief, and that is, that there is a woman mixed up in it. Were it not already the theme of conversation in Omro, we would desist of a mention of . it, as we can look upon it at present only in the light of groundless apprehension. It is currently rumored that h£rs. Beckwith, widow of the late Hon. Nelson Beckwith, has gone with Howard, or has some connection with his disappearance. It is said that Mrs. B. left shortly before Howard’s departure, ostensibly for the purpose of visiting Washington, and since that time her family have telegraphed to her and for her repeatedly, but can receive no tidings whatever of her whereabouts. Howard was known to have possession of considerable of her money at the time he absconded, and the fact of her leaving, and subsequent reticence coupled with this, have given rumors to the effect that they had concocted a scheme to meet at some appointed time and place, and .have gone together. F or the lady’s sake, it is but proper to give but little credence to such a suspicion, until further developments shall prove it well founded.”
    The complaint further alleged that the Mrs. Beckwith mentioned in said article was the plaintiff, and that all reference therein to Mrs. Beckwith was intended for her and for no other person; that every portion of the article referring to plaintiff was false and malicious, except the statement therein that “ Mr. Brown, or rather his daughter Mrs. Beckwith, it appears, bought this note of A. H. Howard, or took it as security, and now demands payment of the indorsers,” and the words, “ Howard was known to have possession of considerable of her money at the time he absconded;” that said publication‘by defendants was malicious, and by reason thereof plaintiff had been brought into great public scandal and disgrace, and greatly injured in her good name and reputation, and otherwise injured, to her great damage. The second count of the complaint contained the same allegations, and was for a publication of the same article in the weekly issue of defendants’ paper.
    The answer'denied the malice, and set up facts in mitigation of damages.
    Upon the trial, defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence, because the complaint did not state a cause of action. Tbe court sustained tbe objection, and dismissed tbe complaint; and tbe plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Gdbe Bouck, for appellant:
    1. A publication wbicb tends to injure one’s reputation in tbe common estimation of mankind, to throw contumely, sliame or disgrace upon bim, or wbicb tends to bold him up to scorn, ridicule or contempt, or wbicb is calculated to render bim infamous, odious or ridiculous, is prima faoie a libel, and implies malice in tbe publication. 1 Hill, on Torts, 266; Add. on Torts, 777; Town, on Slander, sec. 22 and notes; White v. Nicholls, 3 How. (U. S.), 266; Oramer v. Noonan, 4 Wis., 231; Lcmsi/ng v. Carpenter, 9 id., 540; Brown v. Bemington, 7 id., 462. So, also, is every publication injurious to private character (Add. on Torts., 776; Burm v. Winters, 2 Humph., 512; Melton v. State, 3 id., 389); or that reflects upon character (O’Brien v. Clement, 15 M. & W., 435; Jolvnson v. Stebbins, 5 Ind., 364); • or that injures social character (1 Am. Lead. Cas., 138); or that induces au ill opinion (BMlhouse v. Bimnvng, 6 Conn., 391);' or that imports a bad reputation. Cooper v. Greeley, 1 Deuio, 347. So with all defamatory words, injurious in their nature. Chad-dock v. Briggs, 13 Mass., 248. 2. In construing a publication alleged to be libelous, tbe scope and object of tbe entire article are to be considered, and such a construction is to be put upon tbe language as would naturally be given it. Tbe test is, whether to tbe mind of an ordinary person tbe tenor of tbe article and tbe language used naturally’ import disgrace. More v. Bewnett, 48 N. Y., 472. And it is only where tbe words do not, pf themselves, fairly charge tbe offense, that extrinsic averments are necessary. Cooper v. Greeley, supra,‘ More v. Bennett, supra/ Croswell v. Weed, 25 "Wend., 621.
    
      C. W. Felker, for respondents:
    There is no averment or collogwkvm showing that Howard and Mrs. Beckwith weut away together for any criminal, unlawful or illicit purpose. When tbe publication does not impute a crime, and tbe language is not actionable per. se, tbe writing must be such on its face as to tend to bring tbe party into public hatred, contempt or ridicule. Unless tbe nature of tbe charge is such that tbe court can see and legally presume that plaintiff has been held up to contempt or ridicule, or that she has suffered loss to her character or business, plaintiff must aver such special damage as she has sustained by reason of tbe falsity of tbe publication.' Stone v. Cooper, 2 Denio, 293; Pugh v. McCarty, 40 Ga., 444; Bennett v. Williamson, 4 Sandf., 60. Tbe article in question charges nothing against Mrs. Beckwith, except that she went away with Howard. It does not impute anything disgraceful or criminal to her. In actions for libel tbe language is to be construed as decent, fair minded, and intelligent men would construe it. There being no extrinsic averments showing that it was improper for plaintiff to go away with Howard, there is nothing in the complaint tending to show that the article would excite any feeling but that of pity or compassion for the plaintiff; and for this the action will not He without an averment of special damage. Ma/yrant v. Bichardson, 1 N. & MeC., 348; Boynton v.Bemmgton, 3 Allen, 397.
   Cole, J.

We think the publication set forth in the complaint is libelous. It is not clear upon its face that it charges the plaintiff with being connected with or implicated in the frauds and crimes committed by Howard. There is considerable ambiguity in the language used in the commencement of the article, and it is doubtful what it means, or to what it refers. The ambiguity might have been explained by a proper averment or colloquium making clear what is doubtfully expressed. The article commences as follows: “Deeper Dyed. The A. H. Howard matter deepening into dark deeds. Forgery discovered. Grave suspicions of a woman at the bottom of it.” The article then proceeds to speak of the affairs of Howard, and to comment on his crimes, frauds and misconduct as brought to light by the investigations. But whether the article means to charge that a woman — and that woman the plaintiff, — was at the “bottom ” of all these frauds and crimes as an instigator or accomplice, or whether it only means that a woman was in some way connected with Howard’s matter, it is difficult to say.' But if it was intended to claim that the publication charged the plaintiff, Mrs. Gary, with being connected with the forgery and other crimes of. Howard as a confederate or instigator, it seems to us that correct pleading required an averment or colloquium “ to ascertain that to the court which is generally or doubtfully expressed,” and to show that the language referred to the plaintiff. See Van Vechten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns., 211; Cramer v. Noonan, 4 Wis., 231; Brown et al. v. Remington, 7 id., 462. As the complaint now stands, it is uncertain what these words mean, and to whom they refer.

But, passing from this point, we think the publication is clearly libelous on the ground that it has a direct tendency to injure the female plaintiff in her reputation, to degrade and disgrace her in society, and to bring her into public contempt and ridicule. Says Chief Justice Whitoh, in Cramer v. Noonan, supra: “We understand from all the authorities, that a malicious publication which accuses one of a crime, or blackens his character, and exposes him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, is libelous.” Lansing v. Carpenter, 9 Wis., 541. That such is the nature and effect of the publication under consideration, must be apparent on slight examination. ' Eor the article proceeds to state; in substance, that “it is currently rumored that Mrs. BeeJcwith, the widow of the late Hon. Nelson Beckwith, has gone with Howard, or has some connection with his disappearance. It is said that Mrs. B. left shortly before Howard’s departure, ostensibly for the purpose of visiting Washington, and since that time her family have telegraphed to her and for her repeatedly, but can receive no tidings whatever of her whereabouts. Howard was known to bave possession of considerable of ber money at tbe time be absconded, and tbe facts of ber leaving and subsequent reticence, coupled with tbis, bave given rumors to tbe effect that they bad concocted a scheme to meet at some appointed time and place, and bave gone together. For tbe lady’s sake it is but proper to give but little credence to such a suspicion until further developments shall prove it well founded.”

It seems to us no intelligent person can read tbis article without seeing that its necessary effect was to disgrace and degrade Mrs. Beolmith in public estimation and esteem; to lower ber in, or to exclude ber from, society; and to bring ber into contempt and ridicule. Tbe learned counsel for tbe defendants insists that there is nothing in tbe publication which charges that Howard and Mrs. Beolmith went away for any criminal, unlawful or illicit purpose. It is true, tbe article does not impute to Mrs. Beolmith any sexual immorality or criminal conduct; but it does directly charge, or imply, that she bad either gone away with, or bad appointed a time and place to meet, a man, who, it was alleged, bad committed forgery, bad been guilty of frauds, bad betrayed bis friends, bad deserted bis family; who was, in short, a man of such a character that no respectable woman could associate with him anywhere without social degradation; or without, as tbe books say, bringing ber into hatred, contempt and ridicule. Indeed, it seems to us that no charge — except, perhaps, tbe imputation of being an unchaste woman, — was better calculated to injure tbe reputation of Mrs. Beolmith, and impair ber standing in society, than tbe conduct attributed to ber in tbe publication. If she was not bis accomplice or confederate, she certainly could not secretly go off with, or make arrangements to meet anywhere, a man such as Howard is represented to be, without placing herself in a most odious and degrading connection. There can bo no doubt that, upon well settled principles, a publication which imputes to ber such conduct is libelous. Rice v. Simmons, 2 Harr., 417; Colby v. Reynolds, 6 Vt., 489.

By the üowrt. — Tlie judgment of tlie circuit court is reversed, and tlie cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law.  