McKenney v. Carpenter

• Decision Date: 23 June 1914
• Docket Number: 3479.
• Citation: McKenney v. Carpenter, 141 P. 779, 42 Okla. 410 (Okla. 1914)
• Parties: MCKENNEY v. CARPENTER ET AL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

141 P. 779

42 Okla. 410

MCKENNEY v. CARPENTER ET AL.

No. 3479.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

June 23, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

It is a question of law for the court to determine whether or not the article published is libelous per se.

When the article published is not libelous per se, the plaintiff must allege in his petition facts showing wherein he has sustained special damages.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.Error from District Court, Carter County; Stilwell H. Russell, Judge.

Action by G. H. McKenney against Arch Carpenter and 34 others.Judgment sustaining demurrer to petition, and plaintiff brings error.Affirmed.

Mason & Rogers, of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

W. R Bleakmore, of Ardmore, for defendants in error.

RITTENHOUSE C.

This is an action brought in the district court of Carter county Okl., by G. H. McKenney, plaintiff in error, against Arch Carpenter and 34 others, defendants in error, for damages caused by the publication in the Daily Ardmorite, in its Sunday issue of March 19, 1911, of a certain petition, asking for the removal of the plaintiff in error as meat and food inspector of the city of Ardmore, and stating in said petition that:

"Believing in the principles taught by the immortal Jefferson, that of equal rights to all and special privileges to none, and that the majority should rule, we the undersigned business men hereby offer this petition to the honorable mayor and board of commissioners of the city of Ardmore as our side of the case of the pure food inspector for the city of Ardmore.We want to state again that we want to be fair; that we have always contended that the present incumbent is not a satisfactory person to hold this position, as his business dealings and principles have been such that they are far from satisfactory to an honest and fair-minded business man who believes in a square deal.But, if it is a fact, as the mayor is said to have stated, that no other man could be found here to take the place, and he must import a man, let him import one that is a man in every sense of the word; a man who will give us a square deal in his work as pure food inspector and also in his business dealings.We want only what is right and have no suggestions to make in regard to the man that shall be given his place; we have no choice as to who shall have this appointment, but we do ask that the present officer be dismissed and that the man who secures this place be a man."

The action was filed on June 24, 1911, alleging:

"That heretofore and upon the 19th day of March, A.D 1911, the defendants and each of them, having theretofore subscribed their names to a certain instrument, which said instrument is hereby specially pleaded and made a part of this complaint, a printed copy of which is hereto attached as 'Exhibit A' to this complaint, caused such instrument to be published in the Daily Ardmorite in its Sunday issue thereof, on Sunday March 19, 1911, said Daily Ardmorite being a paper of wide circulation and going into all parts of the state of Oklahoma, and perhaps many other states, and especially within the city of Ardmore, Okl., where this plaintiff resided and where he was engaged in the practice of his profession and the duties devolving upon him as city meat and food inspector; and said defendants and each of them by their signatures to said instrument, and by causing said article to be published in said paper of general circulation, did willfully and maliciously utter and cause to be published and circulated concerning this plaintiff the slanderous, false, malicious, scandalous, and defamatory words and statements as set forth in Exhibit A as above pleaded; that said words and statements as aforesaid, so maliciously and slanderously caused to be uttered and published concerning the plaintiff by said defendants, tended to blacken and injure the honesty, integrity, morality, and reputation of said plaintiff, and did thereby expose him to public contempt and ridicule and to injure and damage the reputation of the said plaintiff."

"Plaintiff further states that the common acceptance of said words so published and uttered by the defendants were slanderous and libelous, and that said words and statements so published and uttered by the defendants were and are utterly false,

...