Hammersten v. Reiling

• Decision Date: 23 March 1962
• Docket Number: No. 38211,38211
• Citation: 262 Minn. 200,115 N.W.2d 259
• Parties: Byron H. HAMMERSTEN, Respondent, v. William A. REILING, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 259

115 N.W.2d 259

262 Minn. 200

Byron H. HAMMERSTEN, Respondent, v. William A. REILING, Appellant.

No. 38211.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 23, 1962.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In libel action publication of pamphlet wherein plaintiff, member of the village council and village clerk of Roseville, was accused of accepting bribe for procuring enactment of certain zoning ordinances, Held actionable per se. Published words imputing commission of indictable offense, or which constitute false accusations against public official imputing corruption in office, are actionable per se.

2. While accusations against public official or candidate for public office are prima facie privileged, such privilege does not authorize publication of false and malicious statements charging public official with crimes or misconduct in office. Burden rests upon injured party to establish that publisher was actuated by malice or improper motives.

3. Evidence from which it could be properly inferred that ill feeling existed between plaintiff and defendant because of village rezoning ordinance affecting certain lots adjacent to property owned or developed by defendant, and that defendant was motivated by malice in publication of article accusing plaintiff of acceptance of bribe and other misconduct as a public official, Held sufficient to support jury's finding on issue of malice.

4. Statement in closing argument by plaintiff's counsel that defendant's counsel would be punished by the jury for insinuating without evidentiary support that plaintiff had been given liquor to influence his vote on rezoning ordinances, Held not so prejudicial as to require new trial where plaintiff's counsel made it clear that such statement had no reference to the issue of exemplary damages and where trial court correctly instructed jury in detail as to legal principles governing award of punitive or exemplary damages.

5. In libel action punitive damages may be awarded where defamation of character is published with malice and reckless disregard of rights of injured party. Determination of award for such damages rests almost exclusively with jury and its action therein will not be disturbed on appeal, except where award is so excessive as to be deemed unreasonable. Held, award of $7,500 as punitive damages for publication of article designed to damage if not destroy plaintiff not so excessive as to be unreasonable.

6. Award of $12,500 for general damages resulting from libelous publication held excessive and to require new trial, unless plaintiff consent that such damages be reduced to $5,000, so that total award equal $12,500.

T. Eugene Thompson, St. Paul, for appellant.

Miley, Narveson & Williams and David W. Nord. St. Paul, for respondent.

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

Action for libel. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the total amount of $20,000, of which $12,500 was designated as general damages and $7,500 as punitive damages. This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. He contends that (1) the article published by him was qualifiedly privileged and that the requisite evidence to establish malice in its publication was lacking; and (2) the verdict was so excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.

In November 1958 plaintiff was clerk of the village of Roseville in Ramsey County and a candidate for reelection to this office. He had held the position, which paid a salary of $6,000 per annum, for approximately 8 years. During such time defendant was a resident and property owner in the village.

During November 1958, some 30 days before election, defendant caused to be printed and distributed in Roseville approximately 1,600 to 2,000 copies of a pamphlet in which the following was printed:

'A VOTE FOR MR. HAMMERSTEN IS A VOTE FOR ROTTEN GOVERNMENT

'Are Connivers and Real Estate promoters running Roseville to enrich themselves at the expense of our taxpaying citizens?

'A bank robber gives his victim a hearing before he robs them. The Village Council refuses to give its citizens a hearing while stealing the value of their property by rezoning adjacent property for the benefit of Connivers and Real Estate promoters.

'The 1952 Council, like thieves, sneaked through a rezoning of property for the benefit of Mr. Krannak without notifying the interested property owners. It was not surprising that this sneak method was followed, when it was discovered that the Council was to receive $1600.00 to betray the citizens. Mr. Wormsbecker was expected to pay $800.00 of this bribe.

'Don't let the Racketeers run Roseville, elect a Clerk who represents all the citizens instead of a few Connivers.

'William A. Reiling.'

Over defendant's objection, evidence was received that on at least two prior occasions defendant had published and distributed libelous articles of a like nature directed at plaintiff. One such article, published in 1952, set forth the following:

'CORRUPT POLITICS IN ROSEVILLE

'Today Roseville is run for the benefit of corrupt politicians. The citizens are betrayed by fraud and deceit.

'The property on Dunlap and Dionne Streets was rezoned for the benefit of unscrupulous real estate promoters, denying property owners a hearing; like thieves they sneaked through a zoning law to steal the value of our property. Sixteen hundred dollars was to be collected and paid for this service. Mr. Wormsbecker was expected to pay eight hundred dollars of this money. Approximately 200 yards of black dirt was stolen from Dunlap Street. The Village Council knew who the guilty parties were but refused to prosecute them.

'William A. Reiling.'

The other article, distributed by defendant shortly before the village election in 1952, contained the following:

'CORRUPT POLITICS IN ROSEVILLE

'Elect men to office who represent the people instead of the racketeers.

'The two men listed below do not represent the people of Roseville.

'Mr. Hammerstein

'Mr. Willmus

'Voted to rezone property * * * for the benefit of unscrupulous real estate promoter, denying the people living in the vicinity a right to vote on the matter--destroying the value of their property and ruining their surroundings.

'The Zoning law was passed to protect the citizens who build homes and beautify their surroundings. The Village Council uses the Zoning law to destroy your homes and your surroundings.

'Roseville hires an attorney to protect the rights of its citizens. The Village Council uses the attorney to take unfair advantage of its citizens.

'If you don't want racketeers to run Roseville, elect men to office who represent the people.

'William A. Reiling'

Plaintiff testified that he was nearly 62 years of age and had been village clerk until 1958, at which time he lost the election; that he was the Hammersten referred to in the published pamphlets. He denied all the accusations therein. He testified that in a conversation with defendant in 1955 or 1956 the latter had called him a 'son of a bitch'; that since publication of the articles he had been shunned by people in Roseville, specifying a number of times people had avoided him after the publication; and that he had been criticized by some and had suffered mental anguish because he felt that his reputation had been injured in Roseville, where he resides with his wife and son.

Defendant testified that he made and distributed the publications in the interests of good government and that he had no personal animosity toward plaintiff. However, he failed to submit any evidence establishing the truth of the libelous accusations set forth in the pamphlets described. He testified that his information with respect to the bribe referred to therein had come from a Mr. Ralph W. Wormsbecker. The latter in his testimony failed completely to establish the truth of this charge.

In his closing argument, plaintiff's counsel, in commenting on questions asked plaintiff by defendant's counsel, made the following statement which defendant asserts constituted misconduct of counsel justifying a new trial:

'* * * Mr. Thompson (defendant's counsel) made two comments in two questions he asked * * *. He asked * * * Mr. Hammersten, * * * did Mr. Krannak ever buy you any drinks on this matter out there? No, I don't drink. Question, did Krannak ever give you anything? Well, now, I say to you this jury is going to punish Mr. Thompson for that, it didn't go over my head, I don't mind him trying a hard lawsuit and he should, but I don't like that insinuation. I remember those words, I hope the jury does. As I say to you, I think the jury will punish him for it, not in any of the damages, but hold it against him for it.'

At the time, defendant asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard these remarks, which the court refused.

The trial court charged the jury as follows:

'If you find that the defendant has proved by a fair preponderance or overweight of the evidence * * * that the statements in the exhibit were true; or that he has failed to prove them to be true, and his proved that he was justified in making them because he reasonably believed them to be true, and that the exhibit was fair comment concerning the plaintiff as a public officer or as a candidate for public office, then your deliberations will cease and you will return a verdict for the defendant. * * *

'A written or printed publication is libelous if it tends to injure the reputation of another and exposes him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or causes him to be shunned or avoided. * * * Under that definition Exhibit D is libelous; but it does not necessarily follow therefrom that the defendant must respond to the plaintiff in damages for the publication.

'Any citizen has a right to comment fairly and with an honest purpose on the conduct of a public official. The publication of an article concerning a candidate for public...