Murphy v. Farmers Educational and Co-op. Union of America, North Dakota Division, 7503
Decision Date | 27 October 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 7503,7503 |
Citation | 72 N.W.2d 636 |
Parties | William MURPHY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, NORTH DAKOTA DIVISION commonly known as North Dakota Farmers Union, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In determining the actionable quality of words claimed to be libelous in a newspaper article, the entire writing, including the title or headlines, must be considered. And particular words or phrases must be construed in connection with remainder of the article of which they form a part.
2. A demurrer to a complaint in an action for libel based upon an alleged defamatory newspaper article which is pleaded in full will be overruled if any of the statements therein, when construed in connection with the remainder of the article of which it forms a part, are reasonably susceptible of the libelous meaning alleged in the complaint.
3. A defamatory publication is libelous per se when without the aid of innuendo it must be presumed to expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or cause him to be shunned or avoided, or have a tendency to injure him in his occupation.
4. In an action for libel based on a newspaper article charging a public official with failure to discharge the duties of his office, it was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury as to the statute defining nonfeasance in office.
5. Where in an action for libel based on a published article libelous per se, innuendo if pleaded, is harmless and may be treated as surplusage, and if the remainder of the article is sufficient to show that the article is libelous per se, the action may be maintained.
6. Where in an action for libel the defendant admits that the article complained of was published as alleged in the complaint, the questions for the jury are, first, whether the article was true, and if not true, the amount of damages to be awarded.
7. Where in an action for libel based upon a defamatory publication in which the defendant makes charges against the plaintiff, a public officer of failure to discharge his official duties, and such charges are false, the publication is libelous per se.
Quentin Burdick, Fargo, for defendant and appellant.
Hjellum, Weiss & Nerison, Jamestown, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an action for libel. The defendant made a motion to strike part of the complaint. Upon denial of the motion to strike, defendant interposed a demurrer to each of the four causes of action alleged in the complaint. The demurrers were overruled and defendant was given thirty days within which to answer. Defendant answered by general denial, and further alleged that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action; that the alleged defamatory words set forth in the complaint are true, and that the defamatory words complained of constitute fair comment of a public official. The case was tried to the court and a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered accordingly and the defendant appealed from the judgment and the whole thereof.
The complaint, the sufficiency of which is attacked is as follows:
Plaintiff for his cause of action against the defendant alleges:
'1.
'That the Defendant is now and has been at all times mentioned in this Complaint a domestic corporation.
'2.
'That the North Dakota Union Farmer, a newspaper published semimonthly in the City of Jamestown, North Dakota, with additional entry at Frederic, Wisconsin, is and at all times mentioned in this Complaint has been the official organ of the Defendant; that said newspaper enjoys a wide circulation among the citizenry of North Dakota, principally among farmers.
'3.
'That on June 16, 1952, the Defendant, through its official organ, the North Dakota Union Farmer, did knowingly, intentionally, wilfully and maliciously print, publish and cause to be circulated among its subscribers, purchasers and others in a regular issue of said paper of that date, the following statements, to-wit:
'(a) In a heavily outlined rectangle on page one:
'(b) On page six, under a headline, 'June 'Dairy Month' Points Up Problems Of ND's Dairy Industry':
'That the statements which refer to Bill Murphy and to the Dairy Commissioner are directed at the Plaintiff William Murphy and were deliberately designed to, and did convey to the readers of the North Dakota Union Farmer the fact that the person to whom said statements referred was the Plaintiff, and said statements are false and defamatory.
'5.
'That at all times the Plaintiff has been a man of ability, integrity, honesty and industry and has at all times since becoming Dairy Commissioner of the State of North Dakota diligently, honestly, conscientiously and industriously pursued the duties of said office to the best of his ability.
'6.
'That the aforesaid statement:
"Furthermore, in North Dakota you have a state official, the State Dairy Commissioner, Bill Murphy, spending most of his time acting as the errand boy for the ADA--personally supervising the cream check deductions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Emo v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co.
...the letter, who was a third party, and a party other than the defamed. In paragraph 3 of the syllabus in Murphy v. Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union, 72 N.W.2d 636 (N.D.1955), and in paragraph 3 of the syllabus in Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 40......