Alleged Dead Man Denies the Report.
Once upon a time the city editor of a newspaper printed a story about a man being dead who wasn’t dead.
Much to his consternation, the man arose the next morning and read a lurid account of his death. He pinched himself to see if he were dead or alive, and, coming to the conclusion that he was very much alive, after looking at a black-and-blue mark where his fingers had closed together upon his tender flesh, he sought the city editor.
“I read in the morning paper that I was dead,” he remarked to the newspaper man at the desk.
“Well,” laconically responded the city editor, “what about it?”
“I am here as a living witness to testify that I am not dead,” responded the man who was printed dead, “and that the reports of my death are very much exaggerated.”
“I want you to understand here and now that if this newspaper says you are dead, you are dead,” retorted the city editor.
“But don’t you see that I’m very much alive?” queried the astonished dead man.
“All right,” replied the city editor, “we’ll put you in the birth column to-morrow morning.”
Well, there is a parallel case to this in Montana, as is[Pg 61] shown in an opinion by the State supreme court, written by Associate Justice Sanner.
Frank Lemmer, a taxidermist, was the object of an obituary notice in the Great Falls Tribune, W. M. Bole’s newspaper. The notice had him dead, and dead to rights, because of an overdose of morphine, administered upon a prescription by a physician, but evidently the Tribune made the mistake of not putting Mr. Lemmer in the birth column the next morning, although it explained later that Lemmer had arisen from the dead, with due apologies to the supposed dead man.
Now, Lemmer objected to being called a “dead one,” and promptly instituted suit against the Tribune, claiming that he was not dead, and that his business as a taxidermist had been injured by the alleged malicious publication that he was dead.
Naturally, the defendants demurred both generally and specifically, which demurrer was sustained by the Cascade District Court. The plaintiff thereupon declined to plead further, and suffered judgment of dismissal with costs. Naturally an appeal was taken.
Justice Sanner, Chief Justice Brantly, and Associate Justice Holloway concurring, calls attention to the inference contained in the publication of the alleged death of Lemmer.
“The necessary inferences are,” says the opinion, “that Frank Lemmer died; that he died from an overdose of morphine; that the morphine was procured on a doctor’s prescription, which prescription was obtained at Lemmer’s instance by a stranger. None of these circumstances, nor all of them, suggest anything disgraceful or criminal.”
The opinion then proceeds to say that it is no disgrace to die, and that one may die without moral turpitude from an overdose of morphine procured by a doctor’s prescription, even though a stranger acted as messenger in the transition.
“Speaking generally,” continues the opinion, “there is no doubt that one may suffer such damages from almost any publication whatever, particularly a publication to the effect that he is dead; but whenever such damages are sought, it is not enough to aver generally that in consequence to the publication the plaintiff has been damaged in his business; the facts showing such damages must be alleged or no cause of action is stated.”
The opinion then proceeds to show that the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained, and the judgment is affirmed.