Williams v. Williams, Civ. A. 1750-58.

• Decision Date: 04 November 1958
• Docket Number: Civ. A. 1750-58.
• Citation: 169 F. Supp. 860
• Parties: Margaret C. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Reverend Smallwood E. WILLIAMS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

169 F. Supp. 860

Margaret C. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Reverend Smallwood E. WILLIAMS, Defendant.

Civ. A. 1750-58.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

November 4, 1958.

Robert T. S. Colby, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

David E. Sloan, Julius W. Robertson, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

TAMM, District Judge.

This is a suit for unlawful disclosure of privileged communication and defamation. The basis of this action arises from an affidavit executed by the defendant which, the plaintiff charges, contains untrue and defamatory matter known to be false to the defendant, and also that the contents of the affidavit were gained by the defendant by reason of a confidential relationship, that is, clergyman-penitent, and therefore was privileged matter.

The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that there is no statute in this jurisdiction that provides for the cause of action which the plaintiff believes to exist, that no such action existed at common law, and that since the affidavit was filed in a judicial proceeding, it is absolutely privileged, if material and relevant to that proceeding.

The affidavit itself which is the basis of this suit was filed in a judicial proceeding in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Division) in which Quincy Lowe, a deposed minister, was the plaintiff and Gospel Ark Temple Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, a corporation, was one of the defendants—the other defendants being the trustees of that church.

It is apparent to this Court that the affidavit in question was both material and relevant to the suit in Municipal Court. That suit was in the nature of an injunctive action against the church and its trustees, and the affidavit sets forth reasons why Quincy Lowe, the plaintiff in that suit, was ousted, or resigned, from the church. Therefore, as this affidavit was material and relevant, it is absolutely privileged.

The law on this point was aptly stated by Justice Edgerton in the case of Brown v. Shimabukuro, 73 App.D.C. 194, 118 F. 2d 17, 18, wherein he wrote as follows:

"In this jurisdiction, among others, statements in pleadings and affidavits are absolutely privileged if they have enough appearance of connection with the case in which they are filed so that a reasonable man might think them relevant. They need not be relevant in any strict sense." (Emphasis supplied)

The foregoing case restated the principle of law for this jurisdiction as previously stated in the case of Young v. Young, 57 App.D.C. 157, 18 F.2d 807, 809:

"The general rule is that defamatory matter appearing in a pleading filed according to law in a court having jurisdiction, if relevant and pertinent to the issue in the case, is privileged, even if it reflects upon the character of one who is not a party to the suit. * * * This conclusion does not violate the rulings of the Supreme Court in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266, 11 L.Ed. 591 * * *" (Emphasis supplied).

This principle was also followed in the case of Geier v. Jordan, D.C.Mun.App. 1954, 107 A.2d 440, 441, wherein there is the following:

"As we have already said, the first claim set out by Geier was for libel and slander. A bill of particulars filed with the first amended complaint alleged that the matter complained of was contained in the complaint filed in the former action. Since relevant statements in pleadings are absolutely privileged in this

...