Magness v. Pledger
Citation | 334 P.2d 792 |
Decision Date | 06 January 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 37995,37995 |
Parties | Noble MAGNESS, Plaintiff in Error, v. O. W. PLEDGER et al., Defendants in Error. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a libelous statement is made and published in a written instrument purporting to be a petition to the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute a named individual, such statement is not privileged under the statute defining a privileged publication or communication (12 O.S.1951 § 1443), and it is error for the court to sustain a demurrer to plaintiff's petition to recover damages for the libel and dismiss his action on the ground that the statement is privileged.
Appeal from District Court of LeFlore County: Clyde M. Followell, Judge.
Action by Noble Magness against O. W. Pledger and others to recover damages suffered by alleged libelous statement published by defendants by a petition addressed to the Attorney General of Oklahoma charging that plaintiff was guilty of a felony and asking for an investigation. Demurrer to plaintiff's petition sustained and case dismissed when plaintiff declined to plead further. Judgment reversed and cause remanded to district court with directions to vacate the order dismissing the action and overrule the demurrer to plaintiff's petition.
Joe K. Page, Poteau, for plaintiff in error.
William D. Mobley, Poteau, for defendants in error.
This action to recover damages for libel was filed in the District Court of LeFlore County against O. W. Pledger and others, who filed a joint general demurrer to plaintiff's petition. The demurrer was sustained by the trial court on the ground that the libelous matter alleged came within the rule of absolute privilege under the law of Oklahoma. Plaintiff excepted to the ruling of the court, declined to plead further and his case was dismissed. Plaintiff gave notice of appeal upon transcript of the record. We shall refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court.
Plaintiff attached to his petition as Exhibit A a copy of the alleged libelous matter said to have been maliciously composed, signed, circulated and published by them and which plaintiff alleged to be false, unprivileged and libelous per se and by the publication of which plaintiff was exposed to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, and deprived him of public confidence and injured him in his reputation and business in the amount of $300,000.
Exhibit A referred to is as follows:
'Petition to the Attorney General
The above exhibit was signed by all of the forty-three defendants who were served with summons except four who were not found in LeFlore County. 12 O.S.1951 § 1441 defines libel as follows:
'Libel is a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injury him in his occupation * * *.'
The petition to the Attorney General charges the plaintiff with being guilty of embezzlement, a felony, and is clearly libelous per se unless it is privileged or proven true. Hargrove v. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co., 130 Okl. 76, 265 P. 635, 636 holds:
'A publication is actionable per se when the language used therein is susceptible of but one meaning, and that an opprobrious one, and the publication on its face shows that the derogatory statements, taken as a whole, refer to the plaintiff, and not to some other person.'
Plaintiff contends and defendants concede and we agree that this appeal depends upon the following question: If plaintiff's Exhibit A attached and made a part of his petition falls within the rule of absolute privilege then the demurrer to plaintiff's petition was properly sustained. If the alleged libelous matter was not absolute privileged then the lower court erred as a matter of law in sustaining the demurrer.
It is claimed by plaintiff that Exhibit A in plaintiff's petition containing the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Grove Sun Newspaper Co., Inc.
...seeking to revive a past investigation or contemplating the filing of charges. He was simply trying to win an election. Magness v. Pledger, 334 P.2d 792, 795 (Okla.1959) supports this position. There, this Court was faced with the question of whether a petition by a citizen to the Attorney ......
-
Fridovich v. Fridovich
... ... v. Sherlin Corp., 16 Ohio App.3d 176, 475 N.E.2d 197, 202-03 (1984); Magness ... v. Pledger, 334 P.2d 792, 795 (Okla.1959); Sylvester v. D'Ambra, 73 R.I. 203, 54 A.2d 418, 420 (1947); Moore v. Bailey, 628 S.W.2d 431, 436 ... ...
-
Sherrard v. Hull
...who addresses a written complaint to a city manager contending that police had illegally removed items from his house); Magness v. Pledger, 334 P.2d 792 (Okl.1959) (Court recognized qualified privilege for petitioning under state statute but found that libelous statement made in petition to......
-
Elliott v. Roach
...to act on the contested issue, perhaps because the injured party has no forum in which to show his innocence. See Magness v. Pledger, (Okl.1959) 334 P.2d 792 (a petition directed to an attorney general charging another with embezzlement was not protected where the attorney general was not s......