Saleeby v. Free Press, Inc., 4461

• Decision Date: 05 March 1956
• Docket Number: No. 4461,4461
• Citation: 197 Va. 761,91 S.E.2d 405
• Parties: EMMA SUE SALEEBY v. FREE PRESS, INCORPORATED, AND J. WILLCOX DUNN, PUBLISHER. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 405

91 S.E.2d 405

197 Va. 761

EMMA SUE SALEEBY v. FREE PRESS, INCORPORATED, AND J. WILLCOX DUNN, PUBLISHER.

Record No. 4461.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

March 5, 1956.

Stant & Mirman, for the plaintiff in error.

James E. Heath and M. Earl Woodhouse, for the defendants in error.

JUDGE: WHITTLE

WHITTLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Emma Sue Saleeby sued Free Press, Incorporated, and J. Willcox Dunn, its owner, publishers of the 'Princess Anne Free Press'. The motion for judgment charged both common law libel and a violation of the insulting words statute, § 8-630, Virginia Code, 1950. The answer to the motion asserted that the printed statement complained of was a true statement of a matter of public concern and therefore no liability attached by virtue of the publication.

A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The court overruled a motion to set aside the verdict and, over plaintiff's objection, judgment was entered thereon. We granted plaintiff a writ of error.

The article complained of read:

'The Pioneer Club, one-time the Checkerboard and former hangof (sic), Hobeck, operated now by Hank Felix and Mrs. Joseph Saleeby, Blackie's widow, is running wide with liquor and various forms of gambling.'

At the time of the publication plaintiff was the widow of Joseph Nick Saleeby, deceased, sometimes referred to as 'Blackie'. The record discloses that shortly before the publication defendant Dunn called plaintiff on the telephone and, according to Dunn, stated to plaintiff, 'I am Bill Dunn. I publish a little paper in the county, the 'Free Press' '. Mrs. Saleeby then said 'I know the 'Free Press'. I take it. I was reading it this afternoon. I put it down when the telephone rang. I enjoyed it.' The defendant Dunn then said, 'I want you to help me, if you will. I don't want to seem impertinent, but would you be good enough to tell me whether you, 'Hank' Felix and Hobeck run the Pioneer?'. Mrs. Saleeby is alleged to have answered, 'Hobeck has no part of it.'

It was contended by Dunn that he having asked Mrs. Saleeby whether the Pioneer Club was run by 'you, 'Hank' Felix and Hobeck', her answer that 'Hobeck has no part of it', was an admission on her part that the club was operated by Hank Felix and herself.

The errors assigned deal largely with the court's granting Defendants' Instructions D-1, D-2 and D-3.

The first assignment of error involves the giving of Instruction D-1 which told the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the alleged libelous statements were 'substantially true, in the ordinary and usually accepted meaning thereof they must find for the defendants'. There is no merit in this assignment. It is not necessary to prove the literal truth of statements made. Slight inaccuracies of expression are immaterial provided the defamatory charge is true in substance, and it is sufficient to show that the imputation is 'substantially' true. Section 8-631, Virginia Code, 1950; 12 M.J., Libel and Slander, § 25, p. 75; Restatement, Torts, § 582, comment e; 53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander, § 137(b), p. 224; 33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander, § 117, p. 117; Rosenberg v. Mason, 157 Va. 215, 228 [Note 4], 160 S.E. 190.

Instruction D-2, objected to by plaintiff, told the jury that if they believed from the evidence that Mrs. Saleeby 'knew or had reasonable ground to believe that the Pioneer Club property was to be used for illegal gambling or whiskey selling, or both, and if you further believe from the evidence she was the owner, part owner, lessor, guardian or trustee thereof and permitted, acquiesced in or consented to such illegal use, you should find for the defendants.' The instruction is properly subject to the criticism of being too broad. The published arti...