Murphy v. Harty
Decision Date | 17 June 1964 |
Citation | 78 Adv.Sh. 997,393 P.2d 206,238 Or. 228 |
Parties | Charles D. MURPHY, Respondent, v. Frank HARTY, Appellant. . Department 2 |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert L. Olson, Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
Frederic D. Canning, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hershiser, McMenamin, Blyth & Jones, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, O'CONNELL, DENECKE, and LUSK, JJ.
This is a libel action in which the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for $10,000 compensatory damages. Defendant appeals.
Plaintiff is a former minister of the Baptist Church. Defendant, during the period involved, was clerk and later pastor of Hillcrest Missionary Baptist Church in Portland, Oregon. The alleged defamatory statements are contained in two letters written and published by the defendant, one, under date of October 23, 1961, to Elder Charles Potter, Pastor of Gospel Baptist Church, Kansas City, Kansas, the other, under date of August 30, 1961, to John P. Saunders, Pastor of Unity Baptist Church in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Both letters have to do with claimed improper conduct of the plaintiff as a missionary in Japan, whither he had been sent after having been endorsed for missionary work by the Hillcrest Church in February, 1959. In consequence of reports received by the defendant concerning such conduct the Hillcrest Church on March 22, 1961, voted to withdraw its endorsement of the plaintiff as foreign missionary of Japan and to remove his ordination.
The letter of August 30, 1961, was in reply to one from Pastor Saunders asking for details of the charges against the plaintiff and contained these statements which are made the basis of the second cause of action:
The letter of October 23, 1961, was a reply to the following letter from Elder Potter:
'2525 South 51st Terrace
Kansas City 6, Kansas
October 10, 1961
'Elder Frank Harty
5618 S.E. Nehalem
Hillcrest Baptist Church
Portland, Oregon
'Dear Brother Harty:
'Gospel Baptist Church has authorized me as her pastor to write to the Hillcrest church requesting an answer to the crisis which has arisen among the A.B.A. due to the recall of the Murphys from Japan. Brother Patterson stated in a recent letter to me that 'another church in the A.B.A. could investigate the circumstances pertaining to the Murphys' recall' as missionaries from Japan. Our church voted in regular monthly business meeting to do this.
'The Murphys have been receiving nominal support from Gospel Baptist Church since they departed for Japan two years ago, and we were understandably surprised when we learned from the Searchlight that they had been recalled, especially so when no reasons for this action were given.
'We also learn that although Brother Murphy has requested a hearing before Hillcrest Baptist Church for proof of the charges made against him, a hearing has been refused him. Our church regards this as an unscriptural action against the Murphys. The Bible has clear teaching in regard to matters concerning discipline as recorded in Matthew 18:15-17:
'Far from neglecting to hear the charges that the Hillcrest Church has against the Murphys, they have been doing everything in their power to obtain a hearing to ascertain the charges against them so that they might be adjudged guilty or innocent in a fair manner. If the church that made the charges against Brother Murphy is unable to bring forth these charges and prove them, then she owes him a public apology and complete restoration of fellowship.
'Brother Harty, Gospel Baptist Church feels we have a right to know, as a church which contributed partial support of the Murphys, what were the charges made against the Murphys. Also, who preferred the original charges against the Murphys. Are they of Baptist origin, or did they originate outside the local church? Gospel Baptist Church requests of Hillcrest church that she send messengers to a council of churches of the A.B.A. and show full proof for her actions as a church in the Murphy case. Failure to comply with our request will be taken as an admission that Hillcrest Baptist Church acted unscripturally with regard to the Murphys.
'Also, Brother Harty, Gospel Baptist Church would like further information concerning Brother Patterson's activities with and advice to the Hillcrest church pertaining to the recall of the Murphys. The following is a paragraph from a letter written to your brother, Elmore Harty, on January 13, 1961, and signed by Brother A. L. Patterson:
'When Brother Murphy was in my home recently, I showed him the letter written to me by Brother Patterson, and he then showed me the last letter written to him by Hillcrest Baptist, refusing to give him a hearing before the church. In comparing the letters, we found they had been written on the same typewriter. Since Brother Patterson was in Oregon at this time, we can only conclude that this letter from Hillcrest to Brother Murphy was, in fact, written by Brother Patterson. We respectfully request that your church confirm or deny this fact. If Brother Patterson did indeed compose the letter to the Murphys denying them a hearing before the church, then we suggest that Hillcrest Baptist Church restore the Murphys and make apology to all the churches of the A.B.A., asking the churches to rescind the action taken by the messengers in Miami, Florida.
'Brother Harty, Hillcrest can no longer remain silent upon this matter. Gospel Baptist Church intends to bring every effort to bear in order to bring these dealing with the Murphys into the light of day. The clear teaching of the Scripture is, if it's right, it can bear the light.
'Yours in Christ,
'GOSPEL BAPTIST CHURCH
[Sgd.] 'ELDER CHARLES POTTER
'Charles Potter, Pastor'
Brother A. L. Patterson, referred to in the foregoing letter was the secretary-treasurer of missions of American Baptist Association (ABA) of which the various churches mentioned in the record are members.
The defendant's letter to Elder Potter (which is reproduced exactly as written) follows:
'5618 S. E. Nehalem St.
Portland 6, Oregon
October 23, 1961
'Elder Charles Potter
Pastor Gospil Baptist Church
2525 South 51 Terrace St.
'Dear Brother Potter (Also an open letter to all A.B.A. Churches)
'Your letter was the last of several that has been written to this church, and to men in this area inquiring as to this churches actions concerning the Murphy's case. We entend and hope this to be the last letter that we will have to write on this matter. In the first place you and others like you are judging one of the Lord's Churches. You are insinuating that you know more about how to run this churches business than she dose. In the second place you error in your scripture application of Matt. 18:15-17. This is given for personal offences, and not for misconduct of a missionary. Rather Jesus commends the Church at Ephses for. Rev. 2:2 B. This is the thing the Church did was to judge his fruits, Jesus says, 'By their Fruits you shall know them.'
'Brother Potter and others that are listening to this man. If you would like to know the 'Fruits' of this man, or his record that he has made for himself on the West Coast; we would advise you to secure a copy of the report of the private investigator that Sister Homer Branson employed to envestigate this man.
'Now there is one reason if this church had no other, which we have many and believe them to be true, but this one reason we would have removed our endorsement and that is for starting an unscriptual work in Japan. Mr. Murphy started a work there without any church authority. We believe the commision given by Christ was to the church not man, and which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tubra v. Cooke
...other religious organizations, the appellate courts did not reach the question of First Amendment protection. See Murphy v. Harty, 238 Or. 228, 239-40, 393 P.2d 206 (1964) (defendant church did not file timely demurrer in defamation action by former minister); Muresan v. Philadelphia Romani......
-
Bank of Oregon v. Independent News, Inc.
...modified 63 Or.App. 672, 667 P.2d 532 (1983); see also Cook v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 266 Or. 77, 511 P.2d 375 (1973); Murphy v. Harty, 238 Or. 228, 393 P.2d 206 (1964). Accordingly, a presumption of malice and of general damage to reputation arises from the making of the defamation alone, a......
-
Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation Hosp.
...directed verdict against a party's entire case is properly denied if any allegation is supported by the evidence, see Murphy v. Harty, 238 Or. 228, 247, 393 P.2d 206 (1964), such blanket motions are insufficient as a predicate to invoking the Pavlik rule upon review. Further, this court has......
-
Dale v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n
...975, 77 So. 896; Paxton v. Woodward (1904), 31 Mont. 195, 78 P. 215; Colvard v. Black (1900), 110 Ga. 642, 36 S.E. 80; Murphy v. Harty (1964), 238 Or. 228, 393 P.2d 206. As the court below noted, Dale presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that the leaflet was false, and that AF......