Williams v. Hobbs
| Citation | 131 N.W.2d 85,81 S.D. 79 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 10075,10075 |
| Parties | Harold WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harry H. HOBBS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
L. E. Schreyer, Lake Andes, Shandorf & Bleeker, Mitchell, for plaintiff and respondent.
Brady & Kabeiseman, James E. Doyle, Yankton, for defendant and appellant.
This action is brought by Harold Williams, publisher of the Charles Mix County News, against Harry H. Hobbs, a certified public accountant of Yankton, South Dakota. Verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
The alleged libelous statements were contained in an audit report on the Geddes Independent School District #99 for the period from January 1, 1958 to Jone 30, 1959, requested by the school board of the district. The report of audit was sent to the President of the school board on May 14, 1960, and on May 16 a copy thereof was sent to the Department of Audits and Accounts at Pierre. Reports of the audit, including the alleged libelous material, were published in a number of newspapers in the area shortly thereafter.
The alleged libelous statements appear on pages 8 and 9 of the audit report:
'On the basis of our understanding of the school law, it would appear that the Charles Mix County News has overcharged the school district 20 cents out of each dollar charged for publication of board minutes.'
In a letter sent with the audit, defendant asked the Department of Audits and Accounts if they agreed with his analysis of the overcharges. It is apparent that they did not, because defendant testified that after the receipt of a letter from the Department, he prepared a new Page 9, which omitted all references to the crusade by plaintiff, and added the following:
'Published proceedings in 8 pt type set in 10 pt space should have cost 36 cents per column inch under the 1955 law and 46.4 cents under the 1957 law.'
It is admitted that defendant erred in using the 1955 law, which had been superseded by the 1957 law as a basis for his original computation. The substituted Page 9, corrected this computation, as noted above, which, in effect, conceded that the charges made by the plaintiff were within the legal limits.
On this appeal, no error is assigned as to the admission or rejection of evidence or as to the instructions of the court. Defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant: first, that the statements made were not libelous per se, and no actual damages were proven; second, that the statements were privileged, and the plaintiff failed to prove actual malice; and third, that the statements made were not false. Further error is claimed on the basis that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive.
The question whether the verdict of the jury is supported by competent and substantial evidence fairly tending to sustain the verdict is a question of law to be determined by this court. 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, Sec. 831, p. 273.
In submitting the case to the jury without proof of special damages, the court correctly ruled that the statements regarding overcharges were libelous per se. Libel is defined by SDC 47.0502 as follows:
'Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hackworth v. Larson
...rule is more than negligence and is probably more than highly unreasonable conduct. Rose v. Koch, supra. See also Williams v. Hobbs, 81 S.D. 79, 131 N.W.2d 85. Plaintiffs do not claim nor do their proofs show any 'reckless disregard for the truth' on the part of AP or the In Time, Inc. v. H......
-
Abella v. Barringer Resources, Inc.
...(1977). At least two state courts have held that, when sued for defamation, auditors are qualifiedly privileged. 5 Williams v. Hobbs, 81 S.D. 79, 131 N.W.2d 85, 87 (1964); Ross v. Gallant, Farrow & Co., P.C., 27 Ariz.App. 89, 91, 551 P.2d 79, 81 (1976). See also Burke v. Deiner, 190 N.J.Sup......
-
Petersen v. Dacy
...that failure to investigate does not constitute malice. Peterson, 499 N.W.2d at 916; Janklow, 459 N.W.2d at 421; Williams v. Hobbs, 81 S.D. 79, 83, 131 N.W.2d 85, 88 (1964); see also N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 288, 84 S.Ct. 710, 730, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 711 ¶15 Petersen further r......
-
Waln v. Putnam
...in subdivisions (3) and (4) of this section, malice is not inferred from the communication or publication.' In the case of Williams v. Hobbs, 81 S.D. 79, 131 N.W.2d 85, an action for libel, this Court 'The question whether the verdict of the jury is supported by competent and substantial ev......