Home/Michigan Supreme Court/Kenney v. Hatfield

Kenney v. Hatfield

351 Mich. 498
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 6, 1958
DocketDocket No. 38, Calendar No. 47,327
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 351 Mich. 498 (Kenney v. Hatfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kenney v. Hatfield, 351 Mich. 498 (Mich. 1958).

Opinion

Edwards, J.

This is a libel suit between a lawyer on one hand, and a probate judge, a newspaper and 2 executives thereof on the other.

The alleged libel was in the form of a political advertisement authored by the probate judge during-a political campaign when he was running for circuit, judge, and printed in the News Palladium of Benton Harbor. The advertisement was as follows:

' “On my way to the court yesterday morning I had; the 8 o’clock news tuned in over WHFB and heard the broadcast concerning my commitment of Edward j. Ken'ney, Jr., to the State hospital back in 1950.
“Wednesday’s hearing in the Kenny v. Hatfield matter was merely the conclusion of the hearing held last May. It makes colorful campaign material in the circuit judgeship race for the lawyer-trained judge from Kalamazoo again repeated what he had previously said and prefaced his former statement by saying that as he entered Berrien county he was greeted by signs which read: ‘Elect Judge Malcolm Hatfield, Circuit Judge, 50,000 decisions in 22 years1 with only 50 appeals. Experience counts.’
“We are so busy at all times in probate court deciding approximately 4,000 matters a year, that I paidThe $359.75 court costs at the end of the hearing as I do not have the time to take an appeal to the-Supreme Court. Based on all the facts and evidence. [501]*501as presented to me it is my sincere belief that this man was mentally ill at the time I committed him.
“Judge Sweet did not have the opportunity of hearing the evidence on the case as I did. I understánd .that at that time, I got down to hard facts and was practical in the matter as numerous complaints were said to be on file against Kenney in the Benton Harbor police department indicating that he had been frightening women and required institutional treatment for mental illness for the protection of himself and society.

“paid advertisement”

■ -Plaintiff, who here appears on his own behalf, filed a declaration alleging that the last sentence of the advertisement was false and libelous, and sought $75,000 damages. Defendants by answer admitted the publication but denied the falsity thereof, and pleaded as an affirmative defense that the statement complained of was true. ’ .

At pretrial the issue was phrased thus:

• “The issue is whether or not there were on file on November 18, 1950, in the Benton Harbor police department ‘numerous complaints indicating that the • plaintiff had been frightening women and required institutional treatment for mental illness for the protection of himself . and society.’ ”

Both sides waived a jury trial and this case was tried before a visiting circuit judge;

At trial, during plaintiff’s proofs, the long history of this controversy was laid bare. Though much of it is a story which might be better left unprinted, we know of no way by which we may deal with the issues herein presented without repeating it in these pages.

It appears from this record that on formal petition of a deputy sheriff of Berrien county plaintiff in the instant proceedings, Edward James Kenney, Jr., was committed to the Kalamazoo State hospital after [502]*502hearing on November 18,1950, in the Berrien county probate court before Judge Malcolm EL Hatfield, one of tbe present defendants. The commitment followed examination by 2 psychiatrists and the filing of certificates from them certifying that plaintiff herein was mentally ill.

Plaintiff was released August 16,1952, presumably on parole. On December 4, 1952, he filed a bill of complaint against Judge Hatfield, seeking to declare void the 1950 commitment,- and to have Judge Hatfield restrained from entering any order for his return to the hospital thereunder.

. This case wa,s ultimately disposed of by a circuit ■court decree which held the 1950 commitment void for failure of the record to show compliance with statutory requirements.

This decree was reported in the News Palladium, and read into this record as follows:

“The next one is dated May 29,1954. The headline is a double-column headline reading: ‘Hatfield Scored in Legal Ruling on Asylum Case.’ The sub-headline reads: ‘1950 Commitment is Tossed out by Kalamazoo Judge.’

(Reading):

“Visiting Circuit Judge Luden B. Sweet Friday of Kalamazoo decreed in Berrien circuit court that Atty. Edward Kenney, Jr., of Benton Harbor was illegally committed to Kalamazoo State mental hospital in 1950.
“Simultaneously the jurist handed down an opinion which sharply criticized Probate Judge Malcolm Hatfield for his handling of Kenney’s case.
“Pointing out that he resides in Kalamazoo and has viewed many similar proceedings during his 7-year tenure on the bench, Judge Sweet commented: ‘Not in my experience have I examined a file in commitment proceedings which failed to meet the requirements as has this one.’
[503]*503“Kenney, who spent approximately 18 months in the State hospital filed suit in 1952 against Judge Hatfield, Sheriff Erwin H. Kuhath, Michigan mental health commission, and 2 State psychiatrists.
“Contending that he was unlawfully committed, Kenney petitioned to have the proceedings declared void. Moreover, he asked that the defendants be enjoined from sending him back to the hospital and that all records on his commitment be destroyed.
“Judge Sweet issued a permanent restraining order as Kenney requested, hut said it wasn’t within the court’s authority to expunge from the record commitment proceedings.”

It was the proceeding described above which led to defendant Hatfield’s advertisement which is the subject of plaintiff’s present libel action.

With this much background before us, we turn to the police complaints referred to in the advertisement. They were introduced in the course of plaintiff’s case and are reproduced below:

[504]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kenney v. Hatfield
88 N.W.2d 535 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 Mich. 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenney-v-hatfield-mich-1958.