Bretz v. Mayer

• Decision Date: 20 May 1963
• Docket Number: No. 720748,720748
• Citation: Bretz v. Mayer, 203 N.E.2d 665, 1 Ohio Misc. 59 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1963)
• Parties: , 30 O.O.2d 361 Rev. Emil BRETZ, Plaintiff, v. Louis R. MAYER, Defendant. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Page 59

1 Ohio Misc. 59

203 N.E.2d 665, 30 O.O.2d 361

Rev. Emil BRETZ, Plaintiff, v. Louis R. MAYER, Defendant. ^*

No. 720748.

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Cuyahoga County.

May 20, 1963.

Alfred L. Steuer, Cleveland, for plaintiff.

Owen C. Neff, Snyder, Neff & Chamberlin, Cleveland, for defendant.

HODDINOTT, Judge (sitting by assignment from Monroe County).

The jury in this libel action returned a verdict of $2,500 for the Plaintiff, Emil Bretz. The Defendant, Louis Mayer, moved alternatively for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

Bretz, a man now in his late fifties, was born in Hungary. He received a theological education and served as an ordained Baptist minister there until middle life. In 1948, he came to the United States to assume the pastorate of the Shaker Square Hungarian Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio. He is now a citizen of this country.

Defendant Louis Mayer, a practicing attorney in Cleveland, was born in the United States and is of Hungarian extraction. He had been an active member of the Shaker Square Church for nine years before Bretz came. Some three years later, in 1951, he withdrew his membership after disputes with Bretz over church policies, and joined another church in which he became active.

When the Hungarian revolution against the Communists failed, Bretz became busy day and night arranging for refugees to come to this country. Some of them lived temporarily in his home until they could find employment and permanent residence. Many of them remained in Cleveland and became members of his church.

A schism developed between the new arrivals and the other members, who were a generation or two removed from the old country. The former look upon Bretz as a man of sterling Christian virtues, a loving pastor who gave unstintingly of his money, time and energy in religious work. The original group came to feel that he was grossly neglecting his ministry to them. They criticized him for slowness in mastering English so that he could preach in that language. They said he was dictatorial and endlessly conniving to have his way. One witness said he was a psychopathic personality; others testified they would not believe him under oath. Many of this group left the church in protest.

Bretz was also criticized for his marital difficulties. While still living in Hungary, he had married an American woman, considerably younger than himself. Serious differences existed between them for several years, and in May, 1958, she received a divorce which Bretz did not contest. Three months later, he married his present wife, who then was still in her teens.

There was no evidence of an illicit affair before the divorce; in fact, there appears to have been hardly any courtship at all. The present Mrs. Bretz testified that during her early youth she was miraculously cured of migraine headaches after Bretz had prayed with her several times at church. She looked upon him almost with awe. Her family were all active in the church and she served as organist and in other capacities. After the divorce, Bretz was physically and emotionally downcast, and she was full of pity for him, she said. Then, much in the old world manner, Bretz talked with her parents about marriage, and shortly afterwards they were married by another Baptist minister.

Because of his divorce and early remarriage, Bretz was suspended from membership in the Hungarian Baptist Union, an association of about fifteen ministers of that denomination. Later, action was taken to expel him from the Shaker Square church membership, to take effect retroactively.

In December, 1958, the Hungarian Bethany Church was founded under the auspices of the American Council of Christian Churches, and Bretz became its pastor.

A month later, the defendant wrote this letter to Bretz:

'Mr. Emil Bretz

10016 Lamont Avenue

Cleveland 6, Ohio

January 20, 1959

Dear Mr. Bretz:

This letter is written to you at the request and instructions of many people, too numerous to mention.

The happening of events makes it regrettable that this action becomes necessary and that notice to you must be given in the nature of a demand.

You are herein reminded that you were expelled from the Hungarian Baptist Union of America and that likewise you were expelled as a member and minister of Shaker Square Hungarian Baptist Church. Those acts constitute a suspension of yourself from all ministerial privileges heretofore available to you.

There remain other serious acts which will require justification by you and will be taken up in due time, certainly in the very near future.

It has been brought to our attention that you are intending to solicit funds through an appeal to persons and churches. We are further informed that it is your intention to organize a group of people into a church of which you will be the minister.

Due to your status, your reputation, and events which cloud your character, the following demands are made upon you:

1. Refrain from soliciting any funds whatsoever unless they are for a recognized agency or organization.

2. Refrain from organizing any group of which you would act as minister, counselor or advisor.

3. Refrain from molesting or annoying any religious group or groups in which you were formerly a member.

4. Make preparations for an accounting of all funds which were collected by you or under your direction for all periods since you entered the United States.

5. Discontinue the use of the little (sic) 'Reverend'.

There is a dual approach to these demands--one in a christian spirit and one in a legal capacity. There is overwhelming support for these demands from all groups of people, especially ministers. These issues have received careful consideration by a legal committee and unless you comply with the herein demands, the following actions will be filed against you in The Court of Common Pleas:

1. A restraining order from collecting or soliciting funds of any kind whatsoever.

2. A restraining order from organizing any church whatsoever and an order restraining your using the title of 'Reverend'.

In connection with funds collected by you in the past, you are requested to prepare an accounting within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. Refusal to comply shall then necessitate immediate legal action.

This action is engendered by the chaos brought about as a result of your conduct; past, present, and anticipated. All of the issues involved are problems in which this community has an interest. There is an abundance of legal authority to support our views so that we go forth with supreme confidence.

It was said in 1662 by Thomas Brooks, 'Truth is mighty and will prevail.' We repeat that quotation in 1959 without altering its significance.

At the risk of being repetitious, I again state that this action is dictated by a large class of people who have certain definite inalienable rights. Those rights shall be protected.

Very truly yours,

Louis R. Mayer'

The defendant testified that he wrote this letter at the request of several persons including the former Mrs. Bretz and a Hungarian Baptist minister. It was sealed in an envelope addressed to Bretz and sent by registered mail. Bretz showed the letter to several members of the small group seeking to form the new church. One of them translated it into Hungarian so that some of the rest could read it.

Some of the members left the new church because of the letter. There was testimony that the American Council of Christian Churches has held off granting a building loan to the church until the matters in the letter are cleared up. Through the years the new church has struggled along with never more than twenty members. The plaintiff has conducted weekly services to the present. The church has never been able to pay him a salary, and Bretz has a full-time position as guard at the Cleveland Art Museum to support himself.

No action seeking an injunction or an accounting, or any other sort of legal action, has been brought against Bretz by the persons represented by defendant or anyone else.

Part of the Court's instruction to the jury is as follows:

'Before damages can be awarded in a libel suit, it is necessary that the libel be published. The word 'publish' as I have used it has a special legal meaning. It means simply that the defamatory material must have been seen or heard by one or more persons other than the author and the subject of the libel. The reason is that a libel action contemplates, not compensation for wounded feelings alone, but rather damages for impairment of one's reputation with others. There is no publication sufficient for legal liability where libellous matter is sent to the person libelled, unless the sender intends or has reason to suppose that the matter will reach third persons, or such result naturally follows from the sending.

'The dictation of the letter to his secretary by Mayer was not publication because she stood in a confidential relationship to him.

'The first disputed issue of fact, Ladies and Gentlemen, for you to decide is this:

'At the time Louis Mayer sent Exhibit 1 to Emil Bretz, did Mayer intend or have reason to suppose that the letter would be shown or read to third persons, or that such a result naturally would follow the sending?'

In the cases there is some confusion over the meaning of the word publication. This opinion will use the concept found in Harper & James, The Law of Torts (1956) Sec. 5.15:

'* * * if the idea is communicated to the person defamed only, there is no publication and consequently the plaintiff's interest in his reputation has not been invaded. 'The basis of the action is damages for injury to the character in the opinion of others. This cannot arise but from publication.'' (citing Lyle v. Clason, 1 Gaines 581, 583 (N.Y. 1804)

Thus, publication is merely the communication of the libel to some person other than the one libeled--by either defendant or plaintiff.

Eminent legal authorities recognize that there are...