Miles v. Louis Wasmer, Inc., 24051.

• Decision Date: 10 April 1933
• Docket Number: 24051.
• Citation: 20 P.2d 847,172 Wash. 466
• Parties: MILES v. LOUIS WASMER, Inc., et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

20 P.2d 847

172 Wash. 466

MILES v. LOUIS WASMER, Inc., et al.

No. 24051.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 10, 1933

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke, Judge.

Action by G. G. Miles against Louis Wasmer, Inc., and others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Wakefield & Witherspoon, Turner, Nuzum & Nuzum, and Ed. B. Powell, all of Spokane, for appellants.

C. W Greenough and A. O. Colburn, both of Spokane, for respondent.

MAIN Justice.

This action was brought to recover damages for defamatory words spoken over a broadcasting station. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that a recovery could be had. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000, from which the defendants, Louis Wasmer, Inc., Louis Wasmer individually, Charles C. Lantry and William H. Castner, appeal.

The facts are these: The appellant Louis Wasmer, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, with its principal place of business in the city of Spokane where it owns and operates a broadcasting station known as station KHQ. The stock of the corporation was owned by Louis Wasmer and Elizabeth Wasmer, his wife, and Mr. Wasmer was the president and general manager thereof. The appellant William H. Castner conducted in Spokane a newspaper known as 'Public Opinion,' which was devoted to an endeavor to bring about a modification of the Volstead Act and the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Lantry was employed by the corporation as an announcer over station KHQ. The respondent, G. G. Miles, was the duly elected, qualified, and acting sheriff of Spokane county.

Prior to July 11, 1931, Castner purchased from the corporation, or rented, time over the radio broadcasting station for the purpose of advertising the publication mentioned. On the morning of July 11th, Castner submitted to Lantry a typewritten manuscript to be read over the broadcasting station. Lantry was to amend and alter the manuscript in any manner he saw fit, and announce or read the same, as corrected, over the station. In compliance with Castner's request, Lantry did read the manuscript, as corrected, over the station, and for this purpose was employed and paid by Castner. It was not read on the time for which he was paid by the corporation as an employee.

The manuscript, as read, contained the following 'It's really surprising to know how many good Americans spend their vacations in Victoria and Vancouver. The scenery is just wonderful up there and such Water, and the most wonderful golf courses you ever saw. Many of our prohibition friends go there to play golf and quaff the marvelous water, and the prohibition beverages of America Don't go down quite so well after one has partaken of the Canadian variety. Here is another thing which might be amusing if it were not so serious. We are about to have a bunch of novice moonshiners working off their poisonous experimental batches on the public. The Spokane sheriff's office recently auctioned off its stock of confiscated stills, home brewing equipment and moonshiners accessories to the highest bidders. What a spectacle! Arresting some moonshiner and confiscating his outfit then turning around and sell it to someone else at a great discount so they can start up cheap. Seems like a queer proposition but perhaps the county needs the money. Just why shouldn't the dangerous stuff be destroyed. But if the government sees no harm in collecting income taxes from bootleggers the sheriff can scarcely be blamed for selling moonshine still equipment. Our fifteen minute period is nearly up and we had only begun to tell you what we had in mind, but the remainder will have to keep for another week. This talk, facts on prohibition is broadcast every Saturday evening at 7:30 over Station K.H.Q. Spokane, Washington by Public Opinion, a monthly publication devoted entirely to the great American issue--Prohibition--Public Opinion gives you the facts. Public Opinion will be very glad to mail you a sample copy without obligation on your part, if you are interested in knowing the truth.'

The reading of that manuscript over the broadcasting station is the basis of this action. In the briefs, there is some discussion as to whether the action is one for libel or for slander. This question we shall not decide, because, in so far as this case is concerned, it is immaterial. We shall assume that the words spoken, if they are actionable, must come within the rule of slander. Inquiry will be directed first as to whether the respondent was slandered by the words above spoken.

Defamatory words spoken of a person, which in themselves prejudice him in his profession, trade, vocation, or office, are slanderous and actionable per se, unless they are either true or privileged. 36 C.J. p. 1165; Ecuyer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 101 Wash. 247, 172 P. 359, L. R. A. 1918E, 536. Words spoken concerning matters of public interest, such as matters concerning the administration of government, matters relating to the management of public institutions and local authorities, and matters pertaining to the administration of public justice are within the rule of qualified privilege, if true. In Wilson v. Sun Publishing Co., 85 Wash. 503, 148 P. 774, 778, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 442, it was said:

'Matters of such public interest as fall within the rule of qualified privilege are classified in Newell on Slander and Libel (2d Ed.) p. 576, as follows:

"(1) Matters concerning the administration of the government. (2) Matters pertaining to the administration of public justice, (3) Matters relating to the management of public institutions and local authorities. (4) Matters relating to appeals for public patronage. (5) Matters concerning literary publications, books, and pictures. (6) Matters concerning the character and quality of public entertainments. (7) Matters relating to religious bodies, churches, and associations."

Words spoken, however, which are not in fact true, are not privileged, because, as stated in Graham v. Star Publishing Co., 133 Wash. 387, 233 P. 625, 626, '* * * the privilege ends when falsity begins, and if, as the complaint alleges, the charge is false, the privilege, if there was one, was therefore exceeded.'

In determining whether the words spoken were defamatory, they must be construed in the sense in which they would ordinarily be understood by persons hearing them. Bourreseau v. Detroit Evening Journal Co., 63 Mich. 425, 30 N.W. 376, 6 Am. St. Rep. 320; Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner, 250 U.S. 290, 39 S.Ct. 448, 63 L.Ed. 987.

We shall now take up the language in the article read over the broadcasting station and determine whether, under the rules of law stated, they were defamatory of the respondent in the performance of the duties of his office as...