Paton v. Great Nw. Tel. Co. of Canada

• Decision Date: 17 January 1919
• Docket Number: No. 21072.,21072.
• Citation: 170 N.W. 511,141 Minn. 430
• Parties: PATON v. GREAT NORTHWESTERN TELEGRAPH CO. OF CANADA.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

141 Minn. 430

170 N.W. 511

PATON

v.GREAT NORTHWESTERN TELEGRAPH CO. OF CANADA.

No. 21072.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 17, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Beltrami County; B. F. Wright, Judge.

Action by Edna M. Paton against the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company of Canada. Verdict for plaintiff, and, from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A telegraph company is liable in damages to a wife for sending to her husband a defamatory message, neither true nor privileged, concerning her.

The court properly instructed the jury that the sending of the defamatory message was privileged if the operator acted carefully and in good faith, but was not privileged if he was negligent or wanting in good faith.

Receiving from an utter stranger a message charging plaintiff with adultery, and sending it to her husband without any knowledge as to its truth, or as to whether the writer was entitled to send it as a privileged communication, and without making any inquiry, made the good faith of the operator a question for the jury.

There was sufficient evidence to make the existence of actual malice a question for the jury and to sustain their award of punitive damages.

The amount of the verdict is not so unreasonable as to justify this court in interfering. C. M. Ferguson, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Middleton & Middleton, of Baudette, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Plaintiff recovered a verdict against defendant for transmitting and delivering a libelous telegram to plaintiff's husband. Defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

The material facts are not in dispute. At the time the libelous telegram was sent, plaintiff, a married woman, was postmistress at the village of Graceton in the county of Beltrami, and her husband, W. J. Paton, was on a visit to his brother, Robert Paton, at Mirror in the province of Alberta, Canada. Defendant had a telegraph line which extended from Baudette, a village in Beltrami county about twelve miles east of Graceton, to Edmonton, Alberta, where it connected with a telegraph line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Company which extended from Edmonton to Mirror. On September 21, 1916, one Christ Wilson entered defendant's office at Baudette and inquired of the operator in charge the rate for a ten word telegram to Mirror, Alberta. While the operator was looking up the rate in his tariff book, Wilson wrote his message on one of the usual sending blanks. He was informed that the rate was one dollar, whereupon he placed a dollar on the telegram, passed it through the window to the operator and immediately departed. Wilson was entirely unknown to the operator and the above is all the conversation that took place between them. The message was as follows:

‘W. J. Paton, Mirror, Alberta.

‘Wife caught in adultery with Cox. Come at once. Answer. C. Wilson.’

The operator at Baudette transmitted the meassage to the operator at Edmonton who transcribed it and delivered it to the operator of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company at that place. This operator transmitted it to the operator at Mirror who transcribed it upon the usual receiving blank and delivered it to Robert Paton, in whose care it was sent, and who happened to be in the office at the time it was received. Robert Paton delivered it to his brother, W. J. Paton. Whether the message was handed to Robert Paton to read or was delivered to him in a sealed envelope addressed to W. J. Paton, is in dispute and the evidence would sustain a finding either way.

The law is settled in this state that a telegraph company may be required to respond in damages for transmitting and delivering a message libelous on its face, unless the message be privileged or the charge be justified. Peterson v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 65 Minn. 18, 67 N. W. 646,33 L. R. A. 302; s. c., 72 Minn. 41, 74 N. W. 1022,40 L. R. A. 661, 71 Am. St. Rep. 461, and 75 Minn. 368, 77 N. W. 985,43 L. R. A. 581, 74 Am. St. Rep. 502.

That the charge made in this message was false is conceded, and no attempt was made to justify...