Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Medley
| Decision Date | 01 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 4620. |
| Parties | CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. ET AL. v. MEDLEY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The following service letter, issued by a railroad company to its former employé, upon his discharge: --is not libelous per se.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from Superior Court, Garfield County; Dan Huett, Judge.
Action by H. N. Medley, against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded.
C. O Blake, R. J. Roberts, and W. H. Moore, all of El Reno, and J G. Gamble, of Des Moines, Iowa, and K. W. Shartel, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
H. G McKeever and Frederick L. Brimi, both of Enid, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from the superior court of Garfield county. On December 30, 1910, the defendant in error Medley commenced this action in said court against the plaintiffs in error and the defendant in error Taylor to recover damages: (1) For their delay in and failure to issue him a true and proper service letter or clearance card, upon his discharge from the service of the railroad company, and the issuance to him of a false service letter or clearance card; and (2) for libel for the publication of such false service letter. We shall refer to the parties as they were in the trial court.
The amended petition contains two counts, one for damages for the delay in and failure to issue said service letter and the issuance to him of a false one, and the other for libel for the publication of such false letter. The issues were joined and the case tried to the court and jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants the railroad company and Bassett for the sum of $1,000, for libel for the publication of said service letter, from which they have appealed.
At the conclusion of the taking of testimony the plaintiff dismissed the action as against Taylor, and the trial court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence on the first count as against the railroad company and Bassett, and withdrew the same from the jury.
The salient facts necessary to be considered to determine the question presented are: Bassett is in the employ of the defendant company, as foreman of its roundhouse at Enid; Taylor is also in its employ, as superintendent of motive power, residing at Shawnee; Medley is a car repairer by trade, and entered the employ of said company as such at Enid, on July 25, 1909, and continued in its employ as such until January 17, 1910, when he was discharged for being an agitator and creating trouble in the ranks of the company's men at Enid. In February, following his discharge, a service letter was prepared by Taylor, showing when he entered the company's employ, his discharge, and the reasons therefor. This letter was not mailed nor delivered to Medley, but remained in Bassett's office at Enid. It was prepared upon Medley's request; Bassett sent word to Medley that the service letter was ready for him; he, however, did not call for it at that time; he learned, through Osborn, an employé of the company, that the letter had been issued, and, upon inquiry as to what it was, Osborn said to him that it was a "peach," and that he should get it. Later Medley mentioned to Taylor that he was entitled to his service letter, but had not received it. Following this, and on October 13, 1910, Taylor, as superintendent of motive power, issued and mailed to him the following service letter:
Following the receipt of this letter and on October 24, 1910, Medley wrote Taylor, with reference to the same, requesting an investigation of the truth of the charges therein stated. Thereupon Taylor sent his letter to Embruy, master mechanic of the defendant company, with request that he go to Enid and investigate the charges. Embruy did this, and in the course of his investigation talked with various employés of the company at Enid, who had formerly worked with Medley, with reference to his conduct and demeanor while in the company's employ at Enid. During this investigation some of the employés of the company saw a copy of said service letter. Embruy satisfied himself, as a result of this investigation, that the statements in the service letter were true and correct, and so advised Medley. Medley and Bassett were members of the Brotherhood of Car Men at Enid; Medley was chairman of the grievance committee, and his duties were to settle controversies between the foreman and employés. He preferred charges against Bassett and others in connection with his discharge. The record is not clear as to what became of these charges.
The essential question presented for determination is whether or not the service letter is libelous per se. The language used in the letter is clear and unambiguous; hence it was a question of law for the court to say whether or not the letter was libelous per se. Bodine v. Times-Journal Pub. Co., 26 Okl. 135, 110 P. 1096, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147; Spencer v. Minnick, 41 Okl. 613, 139 P. 130; McKenney v. Carpenter et al., 42 Okl. 410, 141 P. 779. This it did, and advised the jury that it was libelous per se. The correctness of this instruction is properly presented and challenged here. In determining whether or not the letter is libelous per se, the words used therein should be given their plain, natural, popular, and obvious meaning and use. Hubbard v. Cowling, 36 Okl. 603, 129 P. 714; Spencer v. Minnick, supra; Smith v. Gillis, 151 P. 869. Our statute, section 4956, R. L. 1910, defines libel as follows:
"Libel is a false or malicious...
To continue reading
Request your trial