Spencer v. Minnick
| Decision Date | 20 December 1913 |
| Citation | 139 P. 130,41 Okla. 613,1913 OK 732 |
| Parties | SPENCER v. MINNICK. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1914.
Syllabus by the Court.
When the answer of defendant in a libel suit admits the publication of the alleged libelous article, at the time and in the manner alleged, and avers in general terms for a defense, that the matters and things published were true such answer has the effect of not only admitting the words used, but also admits their use with the meaning assigned to them by way of innuendo.
In a suit based on several alleged libelous articles, when the defense is that the articles published are all true, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless the truth of every material item of the defamatory matter is established.
Where the language of an alleged libel is clear and unambiguous and the facts are uncontroverted with reference to whether or not the language used is libelous, or its publication privileged, on a trial the questions so presented are of law for the court to determine.
A man cannot libel another by the publication of language the meaning and damaging effect of which is clear to all men, and where the identity of the person meant cannot be doubted, and then escape liability through the use of a question mark.
Words used in an alleged libelous article are to be taken in their most natural and obvious sense, and in which those to whom they are addressed will be sure to understand them.
Language used in a newspaper article, which, given its ordinary natural and obvious meaning, exposes the person concerning whom it is used to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence or to injure him in his occupation, is libelous and actionable.
It is competent, in a suit on a libelous article, to show that the publisher had been informed through what he considered reliable sources that the things stated in the article were true, and that he so believed them to be in making the publication; but such evidence can only be considered in mitigation of the libel for the purpose of reducing the damages. It does not tend to prove justification.
Commissioner's Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Payne County; A. H. Houston, Judge.
Action by Wilbur Spencer against C. A. Minnick for libelous publication. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Eagleton Biddison & Merritt, of Pawnee, for plaintiff in error.
Freeman E. Miller, of Stillwater, for defendant in error.
This is a suit for libel based upon the publication in the Yale Record, a newspaper published in Payne county owned and controlled by the defendant in error, of three articles, which the plaintiff in error alleges were false, malicious, and intended to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy, and intended to deprive him of public confidence and damage him in his business.
The portions of the various articles are set out in the petition in so far as they are claimed to be libelous; the first, and perhaps the most important of the three, being as follows:
"Having secured reliable information we applied direct to our city marshal to verify the facts, and he plainly informs us that he had been forbidden to interfere with the whisky traffic in Yale, (by whom?)
By the Board of Trustees of Yale. He had to leave the traffic alone or lose his job. He has been carrying the burden of blame, instead of the real parties. Having learned those facts we thus publicly apologize to Mr. Byrum, for all the hard things we have published concerning him, in so far as this condition of things may relieve him of the responsibility. Mr. Watson informs us that he never concurred in the orders to Byrum and had no knowledge of them, hence the burden rests on the other two members of the old council.
This also is additional proof of why the old members of the council were so determined to force Watson out of the board, as a man they could not bully into concurring with them in this line of business, hence was not wanted on the board by those worthies.
Friends and citizens of Yale, what do you think of this situation? Who is the principal man responsible for this lawless condition? Almost every person in Yale believes that Wilbur Spencer is the dominating spirit of the old council. That Brockman is little more than a puppet in his hands. We have in the past published the question! Why was the whisky traffic permitted to flourish in Yale? Who was securing the rake off that must be in circulation under the prevailing conditions? Why were the old members so determined to force Watson out of the board? What was the object sought in removing Watson? We have never been able to secure a reply to any of those questions. Under the light of our present knowledge, the public is free to form their conclusions."
Another article complained of is headed "Church People Attention" and the following language is set out:
Another article was headed "Renegade Socialist" which is evidently of less importance than the other two, and which amounted to the charge that the plaintiff had been a Socialist and changed his political affiliations and became a Democrat in the hope of gaining a political position.
After declaring...
To continue reading
Request your trial