In 1939, Robert Wadlow, the 21-year-old eight-foot-tall “Alton Giant,” lost a $100,000 defamation suit against Barnard, Missouri, “giant expert” and former Nodaway Coroner Charles Humberd over Humberd’s writings about him in the American Medical Journal.
The case was heard in St. Joseph, Missouri, Federal Court at 8th and Felix, attracting media attention and iconic photos, including the photo above by the marquee of the Missouri Movie Theatre across from the courthouse. The Electric Theatre is across the street.
Humberd said he intended to appeal, but he died a year later.
Both images in this article are AI colorized/enhanced News-Press photos.
St. Joseph News-Press, March 11, 1939, Page 1. via Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-joseph-news-press-wadlow-verdict/195845398/: accessed April 18, 2026), clip page for Wadlow Verdict by user Little_Old_Me
Page 2 and Source image of Humberd with Police
https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-joseph-news-press-wadlow-loses-suit/195811191/
WADLOW RETURNS TO ILLINOIS AFTER LOSING LIBEL SUIT /Youthful Giant Declares ‘He Is Not Yet Ready to Accept Defeat. JURY VERDICT GIVEN IN ONLY 50 MINUTES, Barnard, Mo.: Physician Had Been Sued for. $100,000 Over Writings.
After instructing his attorneys to file a motion for a new trial in his $100,000 suit against Dr. Charles Humberd of Barnard, Robert Wadlow left early this afternoon for his home at Alton, Ill.
The eight-foot eight and a quarter-inch giant showed no emotion last night as the jury in federal court, after fifty minutes’ deliberation, filed in before Federal Judge Merrill E. Otis with a verdict for the defendant in the suit, based on statements made by Doctor Humberd in an article that appeared in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
To ‘Push Other Suit.
“I’m not quitting this fight now, the twenty-one-year-old youth, the tallest man who ever lived. According to today, the medical association Lewis F. Randolph, one of the Wadlow attorneys, said that the motion for a new trial would be filed in federal court within the next ten days.
The outcome of the trial that was a five sensation here will nöt make any change in plans to go ahead with Wadlow’s $150,000 damage suit against the American Medical Association, according to Randolph and Nile- Vermillion, also a” Wadlow attorney: That case is on the docket for trial during the May term of court in Chicago. Got No Pay for Article. Doctor Humberd, described in court yesterday as “a bedside doctor”.and “the American authority on giantism,” received no pay for the article.
Wadlow’s name did not appear in the article, but it was agreed that he was the one to whom it referred. Before leaving with his family for Alton today, young Wadlow, at his room at the Hotel Robidoux, wrote out a single-page statement and gave it to a reporter he summoned to the room. “I am greatly shocked at the verdict of the jury, particularly the special findings of the jury,’ the statement read.
In Good Spirits. My attorneys will file a motion for a new trial. I am not through fighting. American Medical Association, of course. I realize that the Association was the power behind the defense of Doctor Humberd. I am still fighting the influence of that pow- He was in extreme pain.” Much Interest in Trial, “I am going to carry on and take my fight to the people to whom I have always been indebted for their kindness and consideration.
They have given me a lot of encouragement. “I want to also thank the press for the fine co-operation they have always given me. I have never had any fight with the press. From experience, I am sure I never will have. -Robert P. Wadlow.”
Wadlow was in good spirits and joked about the name of one of his attorneys. He sat on a bed, a desk between his legs, as he wrote out the statement. Perry Hiles, Edwardsville, Ill., and M. E. Newell, Alton, Ill., who, with Randolph and Vermillion, represented Wadlow in the suit, said that one or both of them would return here for the argument on the new trial motion.
Feels Vindication.
“We feel that the testimony of the expert defense witnesses entirely vindicated Robert by showing that Doctor Humberd’s reference to the high centers of the frontal lobes being languid and blurred had no reference to Robert’s mentality,” Harold Wadlow, father of the towering youth, said. “Also, that the reference to Robert’s disposition and attitude was.
Only as of the date of Doctor Humberd’s visit to our home, and it was only Doctor Humberd’s expressed personal opinion as of the time of his visit when he came into our home, saying he was on a vacation and imposed on us by overstaying his welcome. “It is very unusual for us to allow a total stranger to enter our home, as Doctor Humberd.
As usual, Robert steps out on the porch to meet strangers unless friends of ours accompany them. References to Robert’s disposition were taken from Barnes Hospital records, all of which were taken under extremely unfavorable conditions. Robert was very ill at the time.
From the time it started Monday until it ended last night, the Wadlow trial drew crowds that filled every seat in the federal courtroom and were present outside the courtroom and around the city hall, temporary quarters for the federal court, at all times the case was in progress.
Robert, who was followed by curious crowds every time he made his. appearance on the streets, posed for scores of photographs while here, and gave out hundreds of autographs. Restaurants where he ate were packed by those anxious to catch a glimpse of “the tallest man in the world.”
Jury Instructions.
In instructing the jury, Judge Otis said that it was his opinion that there were thirty separate statements in the article which the plaintiff contended offended him. Of that number, the judge said, there were six statements which, if not true, were in and of themselves defamatory in nature.
One of those six statements was relative to the use of t the word “freak.” Others were relative to the wording “that fate has fashioned him on so preposterous scale:” “His expression is surly, and he is definitely unfriendly and antagonistic;” “His hands are startlingly enormous;” “His fingers are double-jointed and curl up into bizgruésome gruésome positions, and a statement relative to his physical condition. The question for the jury, the judge said, was whether those statements were true, as on June 2, 1936, the date on which Doctor Humberd examined young Wadlow.
Alternate Juror Excused.
Judge Otis said that the other statements contained in the article were not defamatory even if not true. The jury began its deliberations at 8:55, immediately after Judge Otis excused the alternate, Juror Benjamin Mix, of Amity, Mo.
The members of the jury that returned the verdict were E. Gibson, Plattsburg; David H. Gilmore, Greenley, St. Rock Joseph; Port; John Herman W. Harris, St. Joseph; Floyd Jones, Agency; H. B. Kitzenberger, St. Joseph; Ed T. Lankford, Gallatin; Ray Lytle, Weatherby; Carl Magee, Albany; William McCrory, Mound City, and J. O. Miller, Maryville.
Not Mentioned by Name.
Although the article in the medical journal did not mention Wadlow by name, the instructions to the court made it evident that Wadlow was the subject of the article.
The nearest the article came to the plaintiff’s name was tot to him.”R. W.” The entire defense argument was presented by Robert A. Brown Jr., who spoke for a full hour; Lewis F. Randolph made the closing argument for the plaintiff. In contrast, the opening argument was made by Perry Hiles of Edwardsville, who declared that Doctor Humberd, in the article, had pictured Wadlow as a Frankenstein. Randolph declared that the Barnard physician had set out in that article to tear down young Wadlow’s reputation because Wadlow had ruined his reputation as an expert on giantism. The attorney dwelt on the fact that, some time before, interviewing Wadlow, Doctor Humberd wrote an article stating he had encountered no giants of a height as great as eight feet.
Praises Wadlow as Witness.
Randolph said that Wadlow was the best witness he had ever seen in a courtroom and said that a good description of the youth was “so valiant.” He declared that the plaintiff is not complaining because of his size or for sympathy, and has a beautiful philosophy of life. “The only asset in Robert Wadlow’s life is the goodwill of the public, and it is that which Doctor Humberd set out to destroy,” Randolph said. “We are not after money in this suit.
It has been shown that Doctor Humberd is without property. We are out for vindication for Robert, and the bigger your verdict is, the more complete will be the vindication of this innocent victim who has been wronged.” Randolph closed with a plea for a judgment in the full sum of $100,000. Points to Reputation. Brown, in his argument, pointed to the reputation of Doctor Humberd and said the doctor had made himself a world-recognized student by his own attainments, that he is regarded as the American authority on giants. The defense attorney said that the plaintiff’s intelligence was not at issue and that no argument was being made that the plaintiff’s school grades were poor.
“If the facts in this article were true at the time of the doctor’s interview with Robert on June 2, 1936, then that is a complete defense,” Brown said. He pointed out that The Journal of the American Medical Society is a scientific journal for scientific persons.
Hiles in the opening argument charged that the defense had sought to prove the qualifications of Doctor Humberd not by recognized medical men but by circus giants. He said that Robert Wadlow had done everything in his power to assist those seeking scientific knowledge.
Nearly 150 Exhibits.
The defense rested its case shortly o’clock yesterday afternoon after it had introduced approximately 150 exhibits. Those exhibits included a discarded shoe of Wadlow’s, seven files of clippings, several scientific books, shoe company advertisements, pictures taken of the plaintiff at the Texas Centennial, articles from Look, Life, Time, Radio Guide, and Pathfinder, articles distributed to newspapers by King Features, Wadlow’s graduation picture, X-ray pictures, and notebooks of Doctor Humberd. Dr. J. Harold Ryan was the final defense witness called.
On the stand, he interpreted hospital records in everyday language about Robert Wadlow. He said that he was a personal friend of Doctor Humberd. In reply to the question, Doctor Ryan said there was nothing that he could see in the article that held Wadlow up to ridicule, scorn, public hatred, or contempt. Dr. F: Gregg Thompson, who was on the witness stand just before Doctor Ryan, also said he could see nothing in the article that would serve to hold the plaintiff up to ridicule, scorn, public hatred, or contempt. He said he regarded the article purely as a case history. The doctor said that, from what he had seen during the trial, he did not have the Impression that Wadlow was surly, indifferent, and definitely inattentive. He said he did not regard the plaintiff’s gruésomeme. The fingers do appear to be double-jointed, he said.
A large crowd waited at the city hall last night while the jury was out deliberating the case. Every seat in the courtroom was taken, and police were on hand to hold back the crowd that gathered outside.
+++++
COURT IS LONELY TODAY. The federal court here experienced a relapse in attendance this morning. Since the $100,- 000 libel suit of Robert Wadlow against Dr. Charles Humberd, Barnard, Mo., started and concluded last night, every seat in the courtroom was taken, and crowds waited outside the courtroom door. Not a spectator was present when Federal Judge Merrill E.Otis convened the court this morning. Also, there were no attorneys there. Present were Richard Duncan, deputy clerk of the federal court; a handful of deputy United States marshals, and one newspaper reporter. The judge looked around and recessed the court until April 17.
+++++
Caption: Robert Wadlow, giant youth of Alton, Ill., is shown above with four St. Joseph traffic officers who assisted this week in handling the large crowds that gathered wherever Wadlow appeared. The officers, from left to right, are Lee Kyle, M. J. McNally, William Ayent, and C. H. McKinney. •A jury in federal court last night denied the giant’s plea for $100,000 damages for alleged libelous statements