Redgate v. Roush

• Decision Date: 10 February 1900
• Docket Number: 11,466
• Citation: 59 P. 1050,61 Kan. 480
• Parties: EDMUND REDGATE v. WYATT ROUSH et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

59 P. 1050

61 Kan. 480

EDMUND REDGATE v. WYATT ROUSH et al

No. 11,466

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 10, 1900

Error from Wabaunsee district court; WILLIAM THOMSON, judge.

STATEMENT.

ACTION by Edmund Redgate to recover damages from Wyatt Roush, W. H Goodwin, E. Parmiter and C. L. Wilkinson for alleged libels written and published by them.

Redgate was a member of the Church of Christ, had preached in different churches of that denomination, and, for three years prior to 1897, had preached for the congregation at Wilmington, Kan., of which organization the defendants were elders. In 1897 his conduct and services were not satisfactory to that church, and at a meeting of the elders the fellowship of the church was withdrawn from the plaintiff, and official notice of the action taken was sent to and published in The Octographic Review, of Indianapolis Ind.; The Christian Leader, of Cincinnati, Ohio; The Firm Foundation, of Austin, Tex., and The Primitive, of Panama Neb., sectarian papers published in the interest of the Church of Christ. The following is the notice which was so published:

"To whom it may concern:

WILMINGTON KAN., June 5.--This is to certify that on the 9th day of May, 1897, fellowship was withdrawn from one E. Redgate, a member of the Church of Christ at this place and also a preacher. The charges against him were insubordination and separating himself from the congregation and trying to create a faction, and therefore we cannot commend him as worthy of the confidence of the brotherhood. He has tried to undermine the church here in various ways, and has shown himself utterly void of the spirit of Christ. There are other charges that could be preferred and sustained. Any other information that is wanted we will give when requested, and for any other reference we refer you to our sister congregation at Harveyville, three and one-half miles north. We further state, anything he may say or do to try to show that the Wilmington congregation is divided in his case is false, for there is not a member in the congregation, to the best of our knowledge, at the present time but what believes he has walked disorderly and to the detriment of the church.

E. PARMITER.

WYATT ROUSH.

W. H. GOODWIN.

C. L. WILKINSON."

In his petition, the plaintiff alleged that the publication was maliciously made, with the intention of destroying his reputation as a preacher and taking away his only means of support.

The defendants answered by a general denial and the averment that the plaintiff was never at any time a qualified and acting minister of the Gospel of that denomination.

Issue being joined and the trial had, the plaintiff introduced his testimony, after which the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence and gave judgment for the defendants.

Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

BY THE COURT

1. LIBEL-- Deposed Pastor-- Notice by Elders in Church Papers. Where the officers of a church, upon inquiry, find that their pastor is unworthy and unfit for his office, and thereupon, in the performance of what they honestly believe to be their duty toward other members and churches of the same denomination, publish, in good faith, in the church papers the result of their inquiry, and there is a reasonable occasion for such publication, it will be deemed to be privileged, and protected under the law.

2. -- Reading by Outsiders Immaterial. Where the publication appears to have been made in good faith and for the members of the denomination alone, the fact that it incidentally may have been brought to the attention of others than members of the church will not take away its privileged character.

3. -- Malice Must be Shown. In such case, and where the plaintiff seeks damages, it devolves on him to establish actual malice, and where his own testimony disproves malice, the court is justified in taking the case from the jury upon a demurrer to the evidence.

Isenhart & Alexander, for plaintiff in error.

Robert C. Heizer, for defendants in error.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

One of the principal questions presented for decision is whether the communication complained of was privileged under the law. It was alleged that it was made in bad faith and with the malicious purpose of injuring the plaintiff. The publication is defamatory if character, and naturally would largely deprive the plaintiff of the confidence of the members of his church organization throughout the country. If it was false in fact and maliciously made, the plaintiff is entitled to recover to the extent of the injury suffered, unless the relations of the parties and the circumstances of the case justified the publication and brought the defendants within the privilege and protection of the law. The defamatory statement was not absolutely privileged, as words spoken or written by judges, jurors or witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings, or as in legislative debates, but it was at most a case of...