Ginger v. Bowles

• Decision Date: 05 April 1963
• Docket Number: No. 69,69
• Citation: 369 Mich. 680,120 N.W.2d 842
• Parties: George L. GINGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George E. BOWLES, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 842

120 N.W.2d 842

369 Mich. 680

George L. GINGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George E. BOWLES, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 69.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 5, 1963.

George L. Ginger, Detroit, appellant, in pro. per.

Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty. for Wayne County, Aloysius J. Suchy and George H. Cross, Asst. Pros, Attys., Detroit, for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

KAVANAGH, Justice.

Plaintiff, a practicing attorney, brought this action in the circuit court of Wayne county seeking damages for alleged slander against defendant circuit judge, George E. Bowles. Plaintiff claims the defendant judge slandered him during a hearing on an order to show cause.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's action, claiming he, as a circuit judge, was clothed with an absolute privilege, and therefore his statements, if indeed they were slanderous, were not actionable. At the conclusion of the hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, circuit judge Thomas J. Murphy granted the motion, holding defendant came within the purview of the rule of absolute privilege.

Plaintiff is here on appeal raising 2 questions, which can be consolidated as follows:

Is a judge acting in his judicial capacity liable for an action of slander or libel for communications made by him during the course of a judicial hearing?

The record discloses that at the hearing on the order to show cause, the court indicated he had been trying for 3 weeks to find out whether the plaintiff in the action before him conceded she owed money to the defendant. He made inquiry of the plaintiff's attorney, who stated: 'My client concedes she doesn't owe him a dime.' The court asked the defendant in the case how he supported his claim of money owing; and defendant responded that he supported his claim by a land contract schedule which had been faithfully maintained by him and Miss Dean every time a payment was made. The court then asked the plaintiff's client, Miss Dean, to come up to the bench. and the following colloquy took place:

'The Court: I am going to ask Miss Dean a couple questions because I think maybe I will get through.

'Could you tell me whether or not you concede that you are behind in your land contract payments?

'Miss Dean: In the land contract as such?

'Mr. Ginger: In the land contract as such, no.

'The Court: I am talking to her. I am sorry I have to do it this way but because life is so short[369 Mich. 683] --could you tell me whether you are behind in your land contract payment?

'Miss Dean: I would say in the contract between Mr. Donigan and myself I don't know what to say because he has some other idea.

'The Court: Well, just between us.

'Miss Dean: I was trying to work it out weekly with Mr. Donigan.

'The Court: Do you concede, as Mr. Donigan said here as an officer of the court, several times, that you are behind in land contract payments? Do you concede that, apart from any other factor?

'Miss Dean: Is that right?

'Mr. Ginger: I am going to tell her to answer she is not.

'The Court: You know you ought to be disbarred and I want that on the record. You ought to be disbarred, George Ginger, because you won't allow as an officer of this court, a judge trying to do justice in the case, to interrogate this witness.

'I am going to dismiss this order to show cause.

'Mr. Ginger: The judge should first find out what the facts of the case are. This man does not own this property.

'The Court: You are out of court!'

That defendant judge acted in a judicial capacity cannot be questioned. What he did was done as a circuit judge. The matter was properly before him on the order to show cause. He had a right and a duty to ascertain the facts.

Michigan has always held that judges in performing judicial acts have an absolute privilege. See Mundy v. McDonald, 216 Mich. 444, 454, 185 N.W. 877, 20 A.L.R. 398; Hart v. Baxter, 47 Mich. 198, 10 N.W. 198 (where Justice Cooley refers to the case of McLaughlin v. Cowley, 127 Mass. 316). See, also, Timmis v. Bennett, 352 Mich. 355, 362, 98 N.W.2d 748, 751, where Justice Carr, writing for the Court, quoted with approval from Newell, Slander and Libel (4th ed.), § 351, as follows:

"Cases of absolute privilege are not numerous, and the courts refuse to extend their number. They are divided into three classes. (1) Proceedings of legislative bodies; (2) Judicial proceedings; and (3) Communications by military and naval officers."

The Court further said (p. 363, 89 N.W.2d p. 752):

'In 15 M.L.P. Libel and Slander § 22, pp. 411, 412, a number of prior decisions of this Court dealing with the question of privilege in slander and libel cases are cited, and summarized in the following statement:

"An absolutely privileged communication is generally defined as one for which no remedy is provided for damages in a civil action for slander or libel because of the occasion on which it was made or uttered. A communication absolutely privileged, as, for example, words spoken by a judge in his judicial capacity in a court of justice, or a report or statement rendered privileged by an enactment of the Legislature, is not actionable, though made maliciously, and questions of good faith and the absence of malice are immaterial; but a communication qualifiedly privileged is distinguishable because it it actionable, if made with actual malice, but not if made in good faith.

"Absolute privilege applies more directly to matters of public concern, in regard to which it is considered as a matter of public policy for the general welfare that persons should be permitted to express their views more freely and fearlessly than in regard to private matters or persons. Thus, absolute privilege has a comparatively narrow scope, and it is, speaking generally, strictly confined to legislative proceedings, judicial proceedings in the established course of justice, acts of state and acts done in the exercise of military and naval authority; and in judicial proceedings the protection of the rule extends...