Walker v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 09 December 1929
• Docket Number: 12272.
• Citation: 283 P. 48,86 Colo. 483
• Parties: WALKER v. HUNTER et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

283 P. 48

86 Colo. 483

WALKER v. HUNTER et al.

No. 12272.

Supreme Court of Colorado

December 9, 1929

In Department.

Error to District Court, Adams County; Samuel W. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Nora M. Walker against J. C. Hunter and others. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

B. A. Gates, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

F. F Hunter and J. Paul Hill, both of Brighton, for defendants in error.

BUTLER J.

This is an action for libel brought by Nora M. Walker against J. C Hunter and others. The defendants filed a general demurrer to the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action.

Two causes of action, based upon the same publication, are pleaded in the complaint; the first being for damages for injury to the plaintiff in her business; the second, for damages to the plaintiff's reputation.

From the complaint it appears that the defendants signed and presented to the board of county commissioners of Adams county a petition worded as follows:

'Whereas The management, conduct and existing immoral conditions of the Walker Dance Hall located 1/2 mile east of the Sand Creek Bridge on the Brighton Road are such that, said Dance Hall has become a public nuisance and a detriment to the community at large;

'Therefor: We, the undersigned, do earnestly petition that you deny a license to and close the said Dance Hall.'

The board has full power to grant, refuse to grant, revoke, and cancel such licenses. Session Laws of 1927, ch. 147. The occasion, therefore, was such as to make the publication qualifidely, or conditionally, privileged. In order to deprive the publication of its privileged character, it must appear that it was made with express malice. The defendants say that the complaint contains no allegation of express malice, and that, as the complaint shows that the publication was qualifiedly, or conditionally, privileged, the demurrer was properly sustained.

In each cause of action it is alleged that the defendants falsely, maliciously, and with intent to injure and prejudice the plaintiff, published the libel; that the publication was false, and at the time of the publication was well known by the defendants to be false; that in committing the tort the defendants were guilty of malice and willful deceit; and that the injury complained of was attended by circumstances of malice and insult and a wanton and reckless...