Pitts v. King
| Decision Date | 25 October 1932 |
| Citation | 141 Or. 23,15 P.2d 379 |
| Parties | PITTS v. KING et al. [*] |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; T. E. J. Duffy, Judge.
Action by S. F. Pitts against H. H. King and others, in which defendant named filed a counterclaim. From the judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
H. H. King (Elton Watkins, of Portland, on the brief), for appellants.
L. W O'Rourke and C. G. Schneider, both of Portland, for respondent.
On May 21, 1930, defendant H. H. King filed a suit in the circuit court of Multnomah county for a divorce from defendant Marguerite E. King, on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. In paragraph V of said complaint, he alleged that this treatment consisted of the said Marguerite E. King accepting and encouraging the attentions of another man namely, S. F. Pitts. He further alleged that he remonstrated with her regarding her conduct, but, in spite of such remonstrance, she continued in her course of conduct, and went on automobile rides with said S. F. Pitts, and that she and said Pitts became extremely friendly; that he (H. H King) requested said S. F. Pitts to remain away from his home, and that thereafter defendant Marguerite E. King entertained said Pitts at their home surreptitiously; that he (H. H. King) came home unexpectedly one afternoon, and found his home locked up, and at the said time the said Marguerite E. King and S. F. Pitts were in the house by themselves. He further alleged that defendant Marguerite E. King and S. F Pitts, in spite of his remonstrance, continued their aforesaid course of conduct.
Complaint and summons in said suit were served on defendant Marguerite E. King, who thereafter appeared by attorney, and filed a motion for suit money and attorney fees. On said motion, an order was made requiring plaintiff to pay $65 as attorney fees.
Thereafter said Marguerite E. King discharged her attorney and failed to make any further appearance in the case.
H. H. King, through his attorney, had a default entered against her, and some time thereafter the case was tried and a decree of divorce entered.
On May 24, 1930, three days after the above-mentioned divorce complaint was filed, plaintiff herein, S. F. Pitts, being the S. F. Pitts mentioned in the above divorce suit, filed the instant action for libel against H. H. King, alleging, as libelous, the matters set up in paragraph V of H. H. King's divorce complaint regarding the actions of defendant Marguerite E. King in connection with S. F. Pitts. He alleged that he was a minister of the gospel; that he was the founder and president of the Pacific Coast Associated Undenominational Churches, with headquarters in Gresham, Or., and pastor of the Gresham Undenominational Temple, that he always enjoyed a good reputation in the community in which he lived, and that by reason of the publication of the said libelous matter he was damaged in the sum of $75,000.
To said complaint, defendant H. H. King filed an answer admitting that he had filed the pleading referred to in plaintiff's complaint, but denied each and every other allegation. And then, for a separate answer and defense and in the nature of a counterclaim, he alleged, in effect, the same state of facts in reference to S. F. Pitts that he alleged in his divorce complaint, and asked for damages against the plaintiff in the sum of $25,000 for the alienation of the affections of his wife.
Plaintiff filed a motion asking that defendant make his answer more definite and certain, which was denied. He then filed a motion to strike, which was denied. He then filed a motion, supported by affidavit, asking permission to file an amended complaint and to make Marguerite E. King, H. C. Larsen, and Ella Larsen additional defendants, which motion was granted.
On March 27, 1931, he filed an amended complaint in which he alleges that he is an ordained minister of the gospel, and founder and president of the Pacific Coast Associated Undenominational Churches and pastor of the Gresham Undenominational Temple. He then alleges "that in the spring of 1930, H. C. Larsen and Ella Larsen, H. H. King, and Marguerite E. King, entered into a willful, wanton and malicious conspiracy against plaintiff in his private and ministerial capacity to destroy and blacken his reputation." And to cause him "to be unfrocked and his ordination as a minister of the Gospel to be cancelled and annulled by the church and to have his connection with the Pacific Coast Associated Undenominational churches cancelled and annulled." He further alleges "the said defendants and each of them did willfully, wantonly and maliciously agree to contribute and did contribute to a fund which was to be used and which was used in carrying out the aforesaid conspiracy"; "that the defendants and each of them being possessed of the spirit of Beelzebub *** cause to be filed and defendant H. H. King maliciously, wantonly and wickedly did file and commence a suit for divorce," "in which said suit said H. H. King appeared as plaintiff"; "that the said defendants and each of them did in furtherance of said plan and conspiracy *** agree and jointly caused to be alleged in said complaint and said H. H. King did willfully, wantonly, wickedly and maliciously allege what is known as paragraph V. of said complaint in words and figures as follows: [Then follows a complete quotation of paragraph V.]" He then alleges that all matters set out in paragraph V, so far as they relate to him, are false, and were placed in said complaint maliciously and for the purpose of injuring said plaintiff.
He further alleges that all of the proceedings taken in said divorce case by said Marguerite E. King were a part of the conspiracy aforesaid. He then alleges that the answer filed by the defendant H. H. King, in the answer and the counterclaim, in which defendant alleges that the plaintiff herein alienated the affections of defendant Marguerite E. King from defendant H. H. King, was the result of said conspiracy, and that the defendants caused H. H. King to file said alleged answer and counterclaim; that the said answer was published in the newspapers to his injury.
The defendants Marguerite E. King, Ella Larsen, and H. C. Larsen, filed separate answers. Each of said answers amounted to a general denial.
The defendant H. H. King answered to the amended complaint, and which answer was to all practical effects a reiteration of the allegations of the first answer including the counterclaim.
At the close of plaintiff's case in chief, defendants moved for a nonsuit, which was denied. Defendants thereupon introduced their testimony, and plaintiff introduced his testimony in rebuttal. The cause was thereupon submitted to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is the alleged conspiracy of the defendants.
"A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose or to accomplish some purpose not in itself criminal by unlawful means." 5 R. C. L. 1060.
When plaintiff rested his case in chief, the only evidence introduced regarding defendants H. C. Larsen and Ella Larsen, or Mrs. H. H. King, was the testimony of plaintiff, who testified that he had a misunderstanding with the Larsens about the early part of the year 1930, and that the church board had a meeting and caused the following letter to be written:
It appeared from plaintiff's testimony that Mr. and Mrs. Larsen did not take kindly to this summary dismissal, and in a reply, more vigorous than scholarly, questioned the authority of the official board in the premises and demanded a church trial. This demand was not granted.
On February 18, 1930, the church board received the following letter (quoted exactly as to punctuation, spelling, and capitalization):
Plaintiff testified that the annual meeting of the church was held on the first Monday in April, 1930, there being present from 100 to 150 of the members, also Mr. and Mrs. Larsen; that during the progress of the meeting Mr. Larsen demanded that there should be a church trial to inquire into the reason of the resignation of the defendants H. H. King and Mrs. H. H. King; claiming that there were some aspersions cast upon the name of the pastor, S. F. Pitts. In this connection, plaintiff was asked:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramstead v. Morgan
...98 P.2d 711 (objections to estate accounting); Irwin v. Ashurst, 1938, 158 Or. 61, 74 P.2d 1127 (judge and counsel); Pitts v. King, 1932, 141 Or. 23, 15 P.2d 379, 472 (pleadings). And so, statements made by parties, witnesses, and affiants are included within the privilege. Parker v. Title ......
-
Hoy v. Yamhill Cnty.
...976 P.2d 1160, 1171 (1999) ; Miller v. C.C. Meisel Co., Inc., 183 Or.App. 148, 169 n. 14, 51 P.3d 650, 663 (2002) (citing Pitts v. King, 141 Or. 23, 15 P.2d 379 (1932) ).That leaves Sgt. Warden's statements on Hoy's 2009 performance evaluation. Defendants argue that Hoy failed to give adequ......
-
Miller v. CC Meisel Co., Inc.
...affected, or brought in question, signed by the party or the attorney of the party." (Emphasis added.) 14. See, e.g., Pitts v. King et al., 141 Or. 23, 15 P.2d 379 (1932) (defamatory words in a pleading are privileged if they are applicable, pertinent and relevant to the issues in the case)......
-
Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc.
...by unlawful means.' 15A CJS 596, Conspiracy § 1(1), citing Bliss v. Southern Pacific Co., 212 Or. 634, 321 P.2d 324 (1958); Pitts v. King, 141 Or. 23, 15 P.2d 379, modified 141 Or. 23, 15 P.2d 472 (1932)." 279 Or. at 174, 566 P.2d Plaintiffs allege that defendants adopted a "plan" to depriv......