Madison v. Bolton

• Decision Date: 17 March 1958
• Docket Number: No. 43257,43257
• Citation: 102 So.2d 433,234 La. 997
• Parties: James MADISON v. Nathan BOLTON et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 433

102 So.2d 433

234 La. 997

James MADISON v. Nathan BOLTON et al.

No. 43257.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1958.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1958.

Malcolm E. Lafargue, Shreveport, for defendants-appellants.

Ralph Brewer, Jr., Baton Rouge, amicus curiae.

Campbell & Campbell, by John T. Campbell, Minden, for plaintiff-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff, James Madison, an attorney at law, residing and practicing his profession in the town of Bastrop, Morehouse Parish, Louisiana, claiming to have been damaged by the publication of a certain editorial in the Bastrop Daily Enterprise, of which the defendant Nathan Bolton is owner and publisher, and the defendant Matt Sheley at the time was editor and reporter, filed this suit in the district court seeking judgment against the defendants jointly, severally and in solido in the sum of $100,000, alleging that for many years he has been a reputable, respected and patriotic citizen, a business man, an attorney at law--and President of the Morehouse Parish Library Board, a public office of trust and honor in which he has served without pay; that on January 12, 1954, the defendants caused to be published an editorial ¹ reading in part: '* * * Mr. Madison has no doubt made a good president of the Board. He was at the helm when the beautiful new building of which every resident of the Parish is proud was built. But he didn't do it by himself. Everyone had a hand in it. In fact, Mr. Madison received just as much as he gave. He was paid approximately $13,000 for the lot the library now occupies and it was while he was a member of the Board * * *', which editorial 'exposes petitioner to disrepute, ridicule and contempt before the general public, particularly the citizenry of Morehouse Parish, his colleagues and those with whom he has served in other offices of trust;' that its meaning and implication were 'that petitioner had used his public trust and position and influence as a member of and President of the Morehouse Parish Library Board for the purpose of enriching himself and gaining a personal profit for himself at the expense of the taxpayers of Morehouse Parish by selling the lot the Library now occupies to the Library Board or to the Police Jury for the use of the Library Board for an amount in excess of its cost to petitioner and of its true value. Said editorial implied and was intended to imply that petitioner had betrayed his trust as President of the Library Board and had used his position and influence as President of said Board to indirectly reap a profit for his services as a member of and President of the Morehouse Parish Library Board;' and that said publication 'was done maliciously and for the purpose of injuring the good name, fame and reputation of petitioner;' that same was false, the true facts being that the lot was acquired on March 26, 1930, by Charles Snyder and George T. Madison for $14,000 cash, in the proportion of two-thirds to Snyder and one-third to Madison, and on the following day George T. Madison sold to plaintiff an undivided one-sixth interest for $2,333.33 cash; that sixteen years later, on March 5, 1946, the lot was acquired by the Police Jury of Morehouse Parish from those same persons or their heirs (Mr. Snyder having died in the interval) for $13,500 cash, although the true value was in excess of that amount; that actually the said sale resulted in a loss to the owners on their original investment, the net amount of that loss being $11,137.10; ² that those facts were known or could have been ascertained by defendants; that the accusations, inferences, insinuations and innuendos made in the said editorial 'constituted an unwarranted, scurrilous, false, malicious and libelous attack on petitioner's personal character and reputation for integrity, honesty and patriotism and were made for the express purpose of bringing him into disrepute and contempt before the public, and as a direct result thereof he has been held up to public ridicule, defamed, accused of immorality, corruption in office and selfish motives, all of which caused him great humiliation and mental suffering.' Assessed as damage, for humiliation and mental suffering resulting from the publication of the alleged libel, is the sum of $10,000; for 'injury to his reputation, personal and professional,' an amount of $20,000; and as additional compensatory damages for injury done him 'in the loss of public confidence,' the sum of $70,000.

The defendants first sought dismissal of plaintiff's suit based on an exception of no cause or right of action, and, by supplemental and amended exception of no right of action, asserted that plaintiff, having admitted he held a public office, was governed by the laws of Louisiana found in R.S. 42:1 et seq. (applicable to Public Officers and Employees), in R.S. 25:211 et seq. (titled 'Parish and Municipal Libraries'), and in Article 740.140 of the Criminal Code (dealing with the crime of public contract fraud); that the editorial was published in connection with a news article in the same edition under the heading 'Newsman Ejected from Library Board Meeting,' which article is material and relevant to the issues involved; that the portion of the editorial quoted in the petition is susceptible of explanation by reference to the news article and also to particular transactions of plaintiff in connection with the sale of the lot, as outlined in the petition and shown in attached exhibits; that the quoted words of the editorial 'are not libelous per se or otherwise,' and were 'made from no wrong motives or ill will towards plaintiff,' but the editorial 'simply was one dealing with a matter of special public interest' and as such 'was privileged as a comment on a news matter of general public interest concerning the activities of public bodies and their officials, and is here specially so pleaded;' that the editorial was made in good faith and without malice, and 'falls within the doctrine of qualified privilege respecting fair comment and criticism of public officers and men in public light,' and that plaintiff, because of his own allegations and admissions, is himself at fault and cannot recover. The exceptions of defendant Bolton were ultimately overruled, those of Sheley were referred to the merits, and the matters upon which the exceptions were founded were again pleaded in defendants' separate answers, with additional averments by Bolton that if any injury or damage has come to plaintiff by reason of the editorial, it is because of the instant suit and plaintiff's interpretation in a light derogatory to himself, but never contemplated by defendant; that all of the facts concerning the meetings of the Library Board could not be ascertained because the Board failed to give public notice of its official meetings, refused to permit a reporter from the Daily Enterprise to be present at a so-called 'executive meeting,' and it was not until the opinion of the district attorney was sought that he (Bolton) was able to secure from the Board a copy of the budget; that at the time when consideration was being given to acquiring property on which to construct a library building, the plaintiff, on February 5, 1946, 'appeared in the capacity of President of said Board before the Morehouse Parish Police Jury in connection with the purchase of a lot owned by him and others which the said Board had selected to purchase;' and 'appeared a second time before the Morehouse Parish Police Jury on March 5, 1946, in the capacity of President of the Morehouse Parish Library Board in connection with the sale of the property owned by himself and others to the said Board.' Sheley's answer contained a more detailed averment concerning the Library Board's meeting of January 12, 1954 (the day before the editorial appeared), 'which he chanced to stumble on, as a reporter for the Bastrop Daily News;' and it was while he was attending that meeting that the plaintiff said 'We are going into executive session to discuss the budget, and Mr. Sheley I will have to ask you to leave and wait outside'--whereupon defendant Sheley returned to the office of the newspaper; that it was only after several unsuccessful attempts to obtain a copy of the budget that he, Sheley, was notified by the Secretary of the Library Board that he might pick up a copy at the Board's office; there he found, among other members present, the plaintiff, who complained about the content of the news story and, as to the editorial, said only that others besides himself owned the lot which had been sold to the Library Board, asking that correction be made; that plaintiff's request in that respect was complied with by a correction in an Editor's note of the issue of the following day, Tuesday, January 19, 1954. On the basis of their respective answers, the defendants prayed for judgment rejecting plaintiff's demand and dismissing his suit.

The case proceeded to trial on the merits and the district judge, having reached the conclusion after analysis of the facts and application of legal principles that the objected-to portion of the editorial embodied a false statement of fact and therefore could not be classed as fair comment, and that the said statement 'may be regarded as defamatory without the aid of extrinsic proof,' rendering it libelous per se, which carries a presumption of malice, rendered judgment for plaintiff and against defendants jointly, severally, and in solido for the sum of $7,500, with legal interest from judicial demand. From that judgment the defendants appealed, and the plaintiff has answered the appeal, urging that the award is inadequate and asking that the sum be increased.

In a general and comprehensive sense, libel is the defamation of a person by the publication of any false and unprivileged writing which tends to expose him to contempt, hatred, ridicule or obloquy; or which causes him to be shunned or avoided; or which has a tendency to...