Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Kight

• Decision Date: 25 September 1935
• Docket Number: Case Number: 23598
• Citation: Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Kight, 50 P.2d 350, 174 Okla. 359, 1935 OK 877 (Okla. 1935)
• Parties: TULSA TRIBUNE CO. v. KIGHT
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1935 OK 877

50 P.2d 350

174 Okla. 359

TULSA TRIBUNE CO. v. KIGHT

Case Number: 23598

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 25, 1935

Syllabus

¶0 1 Libel and Slander--When Publication Actionable Per Se.

The term "per se" means by itself; simply as such; in its own nature without reference to its relation; and, in connection with slander and libel, the term is applied to words which are actionable because they, of themselves, without anything more, are opprobrious.In other words, a publication is actionable per se when the language used therein is susceptible of but one meaning and that an opprobrious one, and the publication on its face shows that the derogatory statements, taken as whole, refer to the plaintiff and not to some other person.

2.Same--Article Libelous Per Se When Defamatory on Its Face.

In determining whether the article is libelous per se, the article alone must be construed, stripped of all insinuations, innuendo, colloquium, and explanatory circumstances.The article must be defamatory on its face.

3.Same--Determination Governed by no Fixed Rule.

There is no fixed rule by which the court can determine whether or not a statement is libelous per se.

4.Same--Words to Be Construed by Most Natural and Obvious Meaning.

Words used in an article alleged to be defamatory are to be construed by the most natural and obvious meaning, and in the sense that would be understood by those to whom they were addressed.

5.Same--Scope, Spirit, and Motive of Publication Taken in Its Entirety.

No strained, forced, or unnatural, but the most natural and obvious meaning must be given the article in the sense that clearly belongs to the words used.Whether or not it is libelous depends upon the scope, spirit, and motive of the publication taken in its entirety.

6.Same--Injury to Reputation and not to Feelings as Subject of Redress.

Injury to reputation and not to the feelings of the individual is the subject of redress.The language in the alleged libelous article must be such as to tend to lower plaintiff in the estimation of men whose standard of opinion the court recognizes.

7.Sane--Newspaper Article Held not Libelous Per Se--Recovery Dependent on Pleading and Proving Special Damages.

Record examined, and held, that the article complained of in this case is not libelous per se and plaintiff cannot recover Without pleading and proving special damages.

Appeal from District Court, Rogers County; Wayne W. Bayless, Judge.

Action by H. Tom Kight against the Tulsa Tribune Company.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Biddison, Campbell, Biddison & Cantrell, for plaintiff in error.

Holtzendorf & Holtzendorf and Robson & Moreland, for defendant in error.

OSBORN, V. C. J.

¶1 On April 15, 1930, H. Tom Kight, as plaintiff, filed this action in the district court of Rogers county against the Tulsa Tribune Company, wherein he sought to recover damages for the publication of an alleged libelous article in the Tulsa Tribune.The issues were joined and the cause was tried to a jury.A verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $ 10,000.From a judgment thereon the defendant has appealed.The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

¶2Plaintiff alleged in his petition that he was a member of the House of Representatives, having been elected to said office by the voters of Rogers county; that on January 5, 1930, defendant published in the Tulsa Tribune, a daily newspaper of large circulation in Rogers county, a certain libelous article which is as follows:

"So, on January 28, the Senate exonerated all of its members from any charges, and officially reprimanded Magee and Representative Kight, who had given currency to various charges, and likewise failed to substantiate them.Kight, in furtherance of the big aim of getting rid of Johnston, and to remove prejudices against him, had apologized to the Senate."

¶3Plaintiff further alleges:

"The plaintiff alleges that the said quoted statement is a part of a story carried in the said paper, and on the date given, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked 'Exhibit A,' and made a part hereof, and the plaintiff alleges that the statement made in said article charging the plaintiff with giving currency to various charges and likewise failing to substantiate them, and the part which states that he was officially reprimanded by the Senate, and that he had apologized to the Senate, were false, unprivileged, malicious, and unjustifiable, and which tended, and does tend to deprive the plaintiff of public confidence, and to injure him in his occupation, was maliciously designed for such purpose, and in effect charging the plaintiff, and left a printed record in existence against the plaintiff, that he had made false statements--statements which were untrue, and that this fact had been adjudicated by the Senate, and that he had been officially reprimanded by it, and on account of it, the plaintiff has sustained damages generally, and specially to his reputation and good name in the sum of $ 50,000."

¶4 For answer the defendant filed a general denial and alleged further:

"Defendant specifically denies that it published false, untrue, malicious or unprivileged statements concerning the plaintiff on Sunday, January 5, 1930, or on any other date.

"Said defendant alleges and states that if it published any statements concerning the said plaintiff, said statements grew out of plaintiff's connection with the Legislature of the state of Oklahoma, and his participation as a member of the Legislature in a purported session thereof, at which certain charges were made against certain members of said Legislature.During said purported meeting of the Legislature, said plaintiff had made statements as to the use of private funds for the purpose of paying the expense of that particular session of the Legislature. and the circulation of these reports, whether by plaintiff or others, caused an investigation to be made by the Senate. and after said investigation was made, plaintiff.Kight, stated the testimony had convinced him that the acts of the Senate in voting to adjourn December 28, 1927, was not prompted by ulterior motives.Said plaintiff further stated as follows: 'I now desire to express my implicit confidence in the Senate.'

"Said defendant states that in such articles as it may have written in connection with this session, or purported session of the Legislature, it was acting only as an unbiased newspaper in attempting to give its readers the news in regard to said session, which was of great public interest, and that it did not act with any motive of malice in publishing such statements, and such statements were not malicious, and were not intended to injure the plaintiff.

"Said defendant further states that plaintiff was not injured by said publication, and that he has not been damaged thereby."

¶5 The facts surrounding the publication of the article are as follows: In December, 1927, the Legislature of Oklahoma attempted to convene itself, manifestly for the purpose of investigating certain charges against Henry S. Johnston, then Governor of Oklahoma.On December 28, 1927, late in the afternoon, the Senate voted that it was legally in session, and at 8 o'clock the next morning the Senate voted that it was not legally convened and the attempted session broke up.At that time plaintiff was a member of the House of Representatives.It appears that thereafter Carl Magee, who was editor of the Oklahoma News, published certain articles in said newspaper charging that money had passed to some of the Senators to prevent the continuation of the special session of the Legislature.Thereafter, when the Senate convened in regular session in January, 1929, a special committee was appointed to investigate such reports or charges against the members of the Senate.The investigation was held and the committee reported to the Senate that the charges were groundless and that all reports in the press and otherwise indicating such improper conduct on the part of the members of the Senate were wholly unwarranted, It is agreed that thereafter plaintiff gave to the press the following statement:

"At the time the Senate adjourned on the 28th day of December, 1927, like a great many others I was disappointed, because I had made what I thought was an exhaustive study of the law and felt that the Legislature was in legal session, and should be for the purpose for which it was attempted to be called, Rumors were current and I heard them discussed freely and had opinions and imaginations which were possibly not very much different to the average citizen, but I have listened attentively to the investigation which the Senate has been making, and I have come to the conclusion, as no doubt most others have, that if there were funds raised, it does not appear that it involved any member of the Senate.Since I have watched this investigation and tried to ascertain if some of the rumors which I have heard were true or false, I have made up my mind that the action of the Senate was not prompted by ulterior motives, and I desire now to express my implicit confidence in the Senate."

¶6 On January 5, 1930, the alleged libelous article was published in the Tulsa Tribune as a part of an article reviewing the political history of Oklahoma during the year 1929.

¶7 The burden of plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that he had never given currency to any charges of improper conduct against any member of the Senate.He stated that his motive in refraining from making any such charges was that he was one of the prosecutors of the case against the Governor in the Senate and that he was attempting to stay within the good graces of the Senate to avoid any prejudice against him on the part of Senators which might affect the final determination of the impeachment charges by the Senate.He also testified that the Senate had not reprimanded him and that he had not...