Matthews v. Okla. Publ'g Co.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1923
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12476
• Citation: 219 P. 947,1923 OK 696,103 Okla. 40
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1923 OK 696

219 P. 947

103 Okla. 40

MATTHEWS v. OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING CO.

Case Number: 12476

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 25, 1923

Syllabus

¶0 1. Civil Rights--Liberty of Speech and of Press--Constitutional Law.

The Constitution of the state of Oklahoma provides: "Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

2. Libel and Slander --"Privileged Communications"--Statute.

Section 497, Compiled Statutes of Oklahoma, 1921, defines a privileged communication as one made: "By a fair and true report of any legislative or judicial or other proceeding authorized by law, or anything said in the course thereof, and any and all expressions of opinion in regard thereto, and criticisms thereon, and any and all criticisms upon the official acts of any and all public officers, except where the matter stated of and concerning the official act done, or of the officer, falsely imputes crime to the officer so criticized."

3. Same--Libelous Publications--Public Affairs--Question for Court.

Where it is admitted that the articles complained of were published at a time when the Legislature was in session and an investigation was made, or was being made, of the State Industrial School for Girls, and that the articles dealt with the condition of the school, reports of certain committees of the Legislature and plaintiff's connection with the institution by virtue of his office as Commissioner of Charities and Corrections, and where the circumstances under which the publication was made are undisputed, it is exclusively for the court to determine whether the occasion on which it was made renders the articles absolutely or qualifiedly privileged, or whether the publications were libelous per se.

4. Same--Construction of Language.

It is the duty of the court to determine whether the language used in the publication can fairly or reasonably be construed to have the meaning fairly imputed to it in the petition, and the words used in the articles are to be construed in their most natural and obvious meaning and in the sense that they would be understood by those reading the articles.

5. Pleading--Demurrer to Petition--Scope of Admission.

Where a demurrer is interposed by the defendant to the petition of plaintiff, the demurrer only admits the truth of the facts pleaded, but does not admit the truth of the inference of the pleader based on the facts pleaded, unless the facts themselves are sufficient to authorize such inference.

6. Libel and Slander--Words Not Libelous Per Se--Duty of Court.

If alleged defamatory words are not actionable on their face, but derive a defamatory import from extrinsic facts and circumstances, which are pleaded by way of inducement, colloquium, and innuendo, it becomes the duty of the trial court to determine whether the language used in the publication can fairly and reasonably be construed to have a meaning imputed to it by the pleader, and the court must determine that the words are susceptible of the meaning attributed to them by the pleader before the defendant can be put upon his proof to a jury.

7. Same--Demurrer to Petition.

Where no special damages are alleged in the petition, if the publication complained of is not libelous per se, then a demurrer interposed to the petition should be sustained by the court.

8. Same--Criticism of Officers--Privileged Publication.

Where the publication complained of deals only in criticism of the official acts of a public officer, and where the matter contained in said publication concerning the official act done or of the officer himself does not falsely impute crime to the officer so criticized, the publication is privileged.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 5.

Error from District Court, Garvin County; W. L. Eagleton, Judge.

Action by William D. Matthews, against the Oklahoma Publishing Company, a corporation. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. B. Dudley and Blanton & Osborn, for plaintiff in error.

Embry, Johnson & Tolbert, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, C.

¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Garvin County, Okla., by William D. Matthews, plaintiff in error, against the Oklahoma Publishing Company, a corporation, defendant in error.

¶2 The parties will be referred to in this opinion as plaintiff and defendant, just as they appeared in the lower court.

¶3 The petition alleges, in substance, that plaintiff is a married man, 74 years old, and that he has been, since January 1915, the duly elected, qualified, and acting Commissioner of Charities and Corrections of the state of Oklahoma; that the defendant is now and was during all times hereinafter mentioned a private corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business at Oklahoma City, owning, editing, printing, publishing, distributing, and circulating throughout the state of Oklahoma and particularly in Garvin county, Okla., two daily publications, one known as the Daily Oklahoman and the other as the Oklahoma City Times; that said publications have a large and extensive circulation throughout the entire state and go, as a matter of fact, to practically every home in the state and particularly is this true as to Garvin county; that plaintiff has been for 20 years past a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church and had been actively engaged in the ministry of said church, particularly prior to the time he had been elected to the official position of Commissioner of Charities and Corrections, by reason of which and by reason of his official position, has a very wide and extensive acquaintance throughout the state of Oklahoma and particularly in Garvin county, Okla.; that in February, 1916, the defendant unjustly inaugurated a systematic criticism of plaintiff and his official conduct as Commissioner of Charities and Corrections during his term of office and opposed him in the general election in 1918; that the defendant in its edition of the Daily Oklahoman, under date of January 31, 1919, willfully, maliciously and wickedly composed, edited, published, printed, distributed, and circulated, in Garvin county, Okla., where the same was generally read, and throughout said state of Oklahoma, concerning him, the following false, malicious, libelous, defamatory and unprivileged publication entitled, "Matthews Must Go." Then follows the printed article, which deals with the action of the committee of the Legislature in its investigation of its management of the Industrial School for Girls, which charges the management of the institution is the official duty of the Commissioner of Charities and Corrections and states that his negligence was exposed by the committee report and criticized his report as being worthless, in which the article claimed that plaintiff reported that the institution had been efficiently conducted and that he had tried to shift the responsibility to the former governor and that the revolting conditions, which were prevailing in the institution, were chargeable to the negligence and incapacity of Commissioner Matthews, and winds up by saying:

"To let such an incompetent remain in office would be an affront to the sovereignty and decency of this state and immeasurable wrong to the luckless wards of the state, whom the people are trying to care for.

"Matthews must go.

"His impeachment is an obligation, which the Legislature, by its own admirable energy, had incurred to the people of this state."

¶4 And the petition claims that said publication exposed the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy and deprived him of public confidence and injured him in his office and occupation, and that by reason of the publication, distribution, and circulation of said article he claims, general damages in the sum of $...