Case Title: Murphy v. Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union

Citation: 72 N.W.2d 636

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1955-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
72 N.W.2d 636 (1955) William MURPHY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, NORTH DAKOTA DIVISION commonly known as North Dakota Farmers Union, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. No. 7503. Supreme Court of North Dakota. October 27, 1955. *638 Quentin Burdick, Fargo, for defendant and appellant. Hjellum, Weiss & Nerison, Jamestown, for plaintiff and respondent. SATHRE, Judge. This is an action for libel. The defendant made a motion to strike part of the complaint. Upon denial of the motion to strike, defendant interposed a demurrer to each of the four causes of action alleged in the complaint. The demurrers were overruled and defendant was given thirty days within which to answer. Defendant answered by general denial, and further alleged that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action; that the alleged defamatory words set forth in the complaint are true, and that the defamatory words complained of constitute fair comment of a public official. The case was tried to the court and a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered accordingly and the defendant appealed from the judgment and the whole thereof. The complaint, the sufficiency of which is attacked is as follows: Plaintiff for his cause of action against the defendant alleges: Before bringing this action and in accordance with Section 14-0208 NDRC 1943, the plaintiff served upon the defendant a notice and demand for retraction of the alleged libelous article as it appeared in the issue of the defendant's paper on June 16, 1952. The notice contained an exact copy of the language as used in the published article and made a demand that unless a full and complete retraction was made an action for damages would be brought against the defendant. This notice was served on the defendant on the 21st day of May 1953, and was admitted in evidence as plaintiff's exhibit No. 4. After the service of the complaint the defendant served notice of motion upon the plaintiff to strike paragraph three of the complaint upon the ground that it was irrelevant and redundant and that the defendant was aggrieved by the insertion thereof in the complaint. After hearing thereon the motion was denied by the trial court. Defendant then demurred to each of paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint on the ground that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrers were overruled. The defendant then answered admitting its corporate *642 existence, denying generally the allegations of the complaint, alleging that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, that the statements in the article complained of were true, and were fair comment of a public official, and denied that the publication of said article was malicious. The answer further alleged that defendant made a correction and retraction of the alleged defamatory matter in said article according to its best knowledge and information. At the opening of the trial and when the first witness was called and sworn on behalf of the plaintiff the defendant objected to any testimony and the introduction of any evidence upon the grounds and for the reason that the complaint in the action did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The objection was overruled. The plaintiff is the dairy commissioner of the State of North Dakota and had held that position for more than 17 years. The dairy department is a division of the state department of agriculture and labor, and the dairy commissioner is appointed by the commissioner of agriculture and labor and his duties are prescribed by Section 4-1701 NDRC 1943. There is no material dispute as to the facts in the case. The first witness for the plaintiff was Robert F. Dugan. He testified that he was the editor of the North Dakota Union Farmer and that he was editor of said paper on June 16, 1952. He admitted that the article complained of by the plaintiff as alleged in the complaint was published on the 16th day of June 1952. The article was admitted in evidence as plaintiff's exhibit 2. The plaintiff testified in substance as follows: The term ADA as used in the pleadings and in the record refers to an organization known as the American Dairy Association. This organization consists of units from a number of States in the Union. The organization is established to promote the dairy industry, advertise merchandise and the sale of dairy products. The membership of the ADA is composed of dairy farmers who contribute funds of their own to do the particular work of the organization. The board of directors of the State Association is composed of 10 dairy farmers and 10 creamery operators. As Dairy Commissioner he has assisted the American Dairy Association to some extent. He considered that as part of his duties because it is the purpose of this association to promote increased sales and consumption of dairy products. During the month of June or July the month known as the Dairy Month, the dairy farmers voluntarily contribute 1¢ per lb. of the cream sold to create a fund for defraying the expenses of the state ADA. This contribution is not required but is voluntary on the part of the dairy farmers. The proceeds of these collections are sent to the Dairy Commissioner who keeps a record of the amounts and creamery stations from which they are sent. The checks are then forwarded to the treasurer of the State ADA. The plaintiff as Dairy Commissioner attends approximately six meetings annually within the state of the State ADA. The traveling expenses to and from these meetings are paid out of the expense fund collected from the dairy farmers to which reference has been made. The Commissioner also attends approximately six meetings annually of the National ADA and these meetings are held in different cities within the United States. The traveling expenses to and from these meetings are paid by the National ADA. Under the provisions of the by-laws of the State ADA the Dairy Commissioner is ex-officio member of the board of directors. He has a voice at the meetings but does not have a vote. The plaintiff as Dairy *643 Commissioner never made any charges or collected compensation for his personal services to the State ADA or to the National ADA. The only charges that have been made are for actual expenses and cash expended in his office for clerk hire and other help in the matter of keeping the records of the State ADA. He testified further that the total amount of expenses for clerk-hire and other items incurred for the State ADA as of March 31, for the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 are as follows: These figures were taken from the annual audit of the ADA for said years. The audits were introduced in evidence as plaintiff's exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8. He stated further that he had nothing to do with the solicitation of funds for the State ADA and never did solicit funds for the ADA. As part of his duties he or members of his staff supervised the creameries of the state as to sanitation, efficiency and proper methods of operation, and since 1950 he assigned one member of his staff to give his full time to work with the creameries, assisting them in securing more efficient operation, better care of the products of the plants, and better sanitary conditions. His department made several thousand laboratory analyses of milk and cream from biennium to biennium, and that these analyses were made for the purpose of testing and improving the quality of these products. With reference to enforcement by the dairy department of the laws, rules and regulations covering the dairy industry he stated that several hundred hearings had been had and many prosecutions had been conducted for faulty readings of the Babcock Test, undertesting, giving the farmer less than he was entitled to and not grading his cream properly. Plaintiff further testified that seventy-five percent of the dairy farmers of the state belong to the State ADA. Several other witnesses testified for the plaintiff as to plaintiff's efficiency in the discharge of his duties as Dairy Commissioner. John Eagleson from Buchanan, North Dakota testified that he had been a farmer in the state since 1914 and that he is now a dairy farmer. He was a director of the ADA and had been its president, and a member thereof for 10 years. He stated that he was well acquainted with the Dairy Commissioner; that from his own knowledge as director of the ADA he knew that plaintiff did not solicit or collect funds for the ADA, nor did plaintiff supervise check deductions from dairy farmers for the ADA. He stated also that the plaintiff did not enjoy expense accounts for personal services for the ADA. A. M. Femrite testified that he was manager of the creamery division of Mandan Creamery & Produce Co., and had been engaged in the creamery business 25 to 26 years; he was a member of the board of directors of the ADA. He stated that the deductions from the dairy farmers' cream checks of one cent per pound during the dairy month was done at the creamery where the cream was delivered and that the plaintiff did not supervise the cream check deductions. He testified further that during plaintiff's administration as Dairy Commissioner the general quality of cream in the state had been raised twenty-five percent. He stated that to his knowledge plaintiff had diligently enforced the dairy laws of the State of North Dakota. Ray Bryngelson, manager of the Barnes County Coop. Creamery at Valley City stated he had been in the creamery business 23 years and that he had known the plaintiff for many years. His testimony was to the same effect as the testimony of the witnesses John Eagleson and A. M. Femrite. He stated in substance that the plaintiff as dairy commissioner brought about a general quality improvement in dairy products and that he diligently enforced the dairy laws of the state. Other witnesses for the plaintiff were Ben Haines, a creamery operator from *644 Wishek, North Dakota, Otto Spies, a creamery operator from Mayville, North Dakota, Vernon Cooper, a dairy farmer from near New Rockford, North Dakota, all of whose testimony was of like nature as the testimony of Bryngelson and Femrite, and it is not necessary to rehearse it here, except to state that they agreed that the plaintiff did good work as dairy commissioner. O. A. Amundson testifying for the plaintiff stated that he was manager for the Jamestown creamery of Bridgeman-Russell Company and was also treasurer of the State ADA. He had been in the creamery business since 1915. He stated that Bridgeman-Russell had three creameries in North Dakota and 125 local stations where they purchased cream. With reference to the deductions of 1¢ per pound for cream purchased during the dairy month he stated that they were all made at the local stations and that the plaintiff as dairy commissioner made no solicitations and collected no funds; that the local stations and creameries forwarded the funds to the dairy commissioner who made a record of them and then sent the checks to the ADA treasurer. He testified at great length as to the dairy and creamery industries in North Dakota and stated that the quality of dairy products improved during the administration of the plaintiff as dairy commissioner and that he was an outstanding public official. Math Dahl, Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor testified that the plaintiff was his appointee and was an employee of his department whom he approved. Robert F. Dugan, editor of defendant's paper the Union Farmer, testifying for the defendant stated that after demand by the plaintiff and on June 15, 1953 he published a correction or retraction of the article of June 16, 1952. That the retraction was published on page 6 of the issue of the Union Farmer of June 16, 1953. The correction was admitted in evidence as defendant's exhibit B, and is as follows: Defendant's exhibits D and C were admitted in evidence. Defendant's exhibit D is a letter from Dugan the editor of the North Dakota Union Farmer to the plaintiff dated May 4, 1953. Exhibit C is plaintiff's reply to exhibit D. These exhibits will be referred to later in this opinion. At the close of all of the testimony when both parties had rested the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict upon the grounds and for the reason that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the allegations of the complaint. The motion was denied whereupon the defendants made a motion for a dismissal of the action upon the same grounds which motion was also denied. The case was submitted to the jury and the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial upon the ground of errors of law occurring at the trial and the insufficiency *645 of the evidence. The motion was denied and the defendant appealed. The defendant assigned numerous errors which were argued in its brief under the following heads: We shall consider these specifications in the order stated. Before interposing answer the defendant made a motion to strike paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's complaint. The motion was based on the contention that said paragraph 3 was repetitious, redundant and prejudicial to the defendant. The first part of the publication that the defendant sought to have stricken appeared on the first page of the issue in which the article was published. It reads as follows: On page 6 of the issue appears that portion of the article quoted in paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's complaint which the defendant moved to strike. This portion of the article is an unfavorable report of the condition of the dairy industry in the State of North Dakota. It refers to the big centralizers like Swift, Armour, Cudahy and others using millions of dollars of the farmers' money to advertise increased use of butter substitutes to the detriment of the farmers. This part of the publication is in the nature of an introduction to and lays the foundation for the charges made in the remainder of the article and is an integral part thereof. We conclude therefore that it was not error on the part of the trial court to refuse to grant the defendant's motion to strike the portion of the article complained of by the defendant. The defendant demurred separately to each of paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of plaintiff's complaint upon the ground that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant. That portion of the alleged defamatory publication contained in paragraph 6 states that the dairy commissioner, the plaintiff, is "spending most of his time acting as the errand boy for the ADA,personally supervising the cream check deductions every spring and enjoying ADA expense accounts that nearly equals his pay." Clearly, the language quoted charges the plaintiff with failure to perform the duties of his office and that he spends most of his time in other activities not connected with his office for which he collected compensation nearly equal to his salary as dairy commissioner. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the complaint may be considered together. The portion of the *646 article quoted in paragraph 7 states that the dairy commissioner has as one of his principal duties, the job of enforcement and then continues "it is a strange sight then to see an enforcement officer soliciting fundsit's like having a police chief soliciting funds for advertising in the police hand-book from tavern operators." The "strange sight" and the comparison of the plaintiff as an enforcement officer with a "police chief soliciting funds for advertising in a police hand-book from tavern operators" would undoubtedly leave an impression in the minds of readers of the publication that plaintiff was guilty of reprehensible conduct and would probably subject him to their hatred and contempt. The introductory paragraph of the publication describes the "big centralizers" as engaged in a concerted practice to take advantage of the dairy farmers in the state and that the ADA is controlled by the centralizers. Then follows the charge quoted in paragraph 8 of the complaint that the plaintiff is more concerned with collecting funds from the dairy farmers for the benefit of the centralizers' ADA than in doing his job as enforcement officer and supervisor of the industry in the farmers' behalf. The language quoted purports to state facts, which if true, would establish that the plaintiff, as dairy commissioner, had failed to enforce the dairy laws of the state. It is well settled that a demurrer admits the truth of all issuable relevant facts that are well pleaded. In the case of Roethke v. North Dakota Taxpayers Association, 72 N.D. 658, 10 N.W.2d 738, 740, this court said: We are of the opinion that the statements in the published article quoted in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint, if true are derogatory of the plaintiff. They charge him with breach of official duty and therefore state a cause of action. The demurrers were therefore properly overruled. The defendant next argues that the evidence is insufficient to support an action for libel per se. 53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander, § 121, p. 199, defines libel per se as follows: To the same effect is the following statement from 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander, Sec. 79, page 92: Publications which tend to injure a person in his occupation, trade, business or profession, have been held libelous per se. The complaint alleges that the statements in the publication charging plaintiff with failure to discharge his official duties are false. The plaintiff and his witnesses testified to facts and circumstances establishing that he had discharged the duties of his office. The defendant's answer alleges that the statements in the published article are true and that they are fair comment of a public official. However, defendant has adduced no evidence that the published statements are true, and therefore the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses is uncontradicted. Published statements purporting to be facts, citing specific instances of failure to perform official duties cannot be said to be fair comment of a public official when such statements are not based upon any factual foundation. Defendant's exihibit D, its letter to the plaintiff of May 4, 1953, is in effect an admission that the publication was made without knowledge of its correctness. It requests the plaintiff to furnish information with respect to the statements contained in the published article-information which the defendant should have obtained before the article was published. We quote from the exhibit: The general rule is that the doctrine of fair comment does not permit newspapers to make derogatory statements concerning a public official unless such statements are based on facts or the occasion is privileged. In the case of Rogers v. Courier Post Co., 2 N.J. 393, 66 A.2d 869, 873, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that: Section 14-0203 NDRC 1943 defines Civil Libel as follows: Appellant argues that since no special damages are alleged or proved in the case, if the plaintiff is to prevail at all, it must be on the theory that he has pleaded and proved the alleged matter to be actionable per se, yet, after each paragraph alleging defamatory matters, innuendo is pleaded. The general rule is that a defamatory publication is libelous per se when, without aid of innuendo, it must be presumed to expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or to cause him to be shunned, or to have a tendency to injure him in his occupation. Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400. If the publication is libelous per se, no innuendo is necessary. The question in the instant case is therefore whether the language in the published article is in fact libelous per se. We have referred to the published article set out in the complaint. In paragraph 6 of the complaint the quoted portion of the publication charges the plaintiff with being engaged in activities not connected with the duties of his office and for which he enjoys expense accounts nearly equal to his state salary. No innuendo is necessary to explain the meaning of the language to readers of the publication. The language quoted in paragraph 7 of the complaint is an odious comparison of the plaintiff with "a police chief soliciting funds for advertising in a police handbook from the tavern operators." The language quoted in paragraph 8 charges the plaintiff with failure to enforce the dairy laws of the state, and paragraph 9 charges that the taxpayers of the state have received no benefit for the thousands upon thousands they have paid to maintain the dairy commissioner's department because no effort has been made to promote the dairy industry in the state. No innuendo or explanation is necessary to point out that the plaintiff as dairy commissioner is responsible for the lack of effort to promote the dairy industry of the state. The complaint alleges that all of the charges made in the published article are libelous per se. Where the publication complained of is libelous per se, innuendo if pleaded, is harmless and may be treated as surplusage. The trial court held as a matter of law that the publication was libelous per se and submitted the issues to the jury. We think the language of the published article is of such character as to warrant the trial court's conclusion that it was libelous per se and therefore it was not error to submit the issues to the jury. The next contention of the defendant is that the trial court erred in the reception of evidence. Many alleged errors are cited but they are not argued to any extent in defendant's brief. The plaintiff in one instance had testified without objection that the object of the ADA was to improve and promote the greater use of dairy products. He was then asked by his attorney: "I will ask you this: if, from your experience with ADA and as dairy commissioner, it has accomplished and does accomplish those purposes?" Over objection that it was calling for a conclusion plaintiff was permitted to answer: "It has accomplished its purpose." If the answer was a conclusion of the witness, it had but little, if any, bearing on the issue as to whether the published article was libelous, and therefore was harmless error. Other alleged errors in the reception of evidence were assigned in the specifications, but they were not argued except in a general statement to the effect that several witnesses were permitted to testify under paragraph 3 of the complaint which it is alleged the trial court erroneously refused to strike. Since we have held that the refusal of the trial court to strike paragraph 3 of the complaint was not error it is not necessary to consider it further here. Defendant concedes in its brief that since there was no denial of the matter claimed to have been published there were but two questions for the jury to decide: was the matter true, and if not, how much damage should be given. Defendant argues however that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows: The published article charged the plaintiff with neglect and failure to perform his official duties. If the charges thus made were true the plaintiff would be guilty of nonfeasance in office. The truth or falsity of the charges of nonfeasance was therefore a question of fact for determination by the jury. The instructions of the trial court on the question of nonfeasance were therefore correct. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. After due consideration we are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Finding no reversible error in the record the judgment is affirmed. BURKE, C. J., and MORRIS, GRIMSON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.