Case Title: Waln v. Putnam

Citation: 196 N.W.2d 579

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1972-04-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
196 N.W.2d 579 (1972) John WALN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L. D. PUTNAM, Defendant and Appellant. No. 10838. Supreme Court of South Dakota. April 20, 1972. *580 Herman & Wernke, Gregory, for defendant and appellant. Johnson & Johnson, Gregory, for plaintiff and respondent. WINANS, Judge. The allegations of the complaint state a cause of action in slander. Slander is defined in SDCL 20-11-4, which insofar as this case is concerned is in pertinent part as follows: The complaint alleges that defendant on or about June 5, 1969, at a meeting of the South Dakota Stock Growers Association held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, spoke and published within the hearing of all attending members the following false and slanderous words about the plaintiff: "John Waln told me that he stole those (Halligan) cattle and sold them to me." The complaint alleges further such statement was maliciously made with the desire to injure plaintiff, and as a result plaintiff suffered damages and asks for actual and exemplary damages. The factual background, somewhat summarized, is necessary for an understanding of the situation existing at the meeting where the alleged slanderous words were said to have been spoken. It is provided by SDCL 40-18 that the state brand board is composed of three members appointed by the Governor whose names are submitted by the South Dakota Stock Growers Association. SDCL 40-18-9 and 40-18-10 in part provide that the state brand board may employ persons and corporations to carry out the provisions of chapters 40-20 and 40-21 of the Code, under the supervision and control of the board. The board may appoint as an agency for carrying on of livestock inspection work as nonstock, nonprofit, co-operative corporation of growers of livestock. SDCL 40-18-16 provides that the state brand board shall also have the power and authority to pass rules and regulations relating to the administration of but not inconsistent with the provisions of chapters 40-20 and 40-21 of the Code. The agent of the South Dakota State Brand Board is the South Dakota Stock Growers' Association. A resolution issued by the State brand board of South Dakota having to do with ownership inspection provides for a "hold" of the proceeds of the sale of certain livestock which the brand inspector finds carrying a reported brand which is not the property of consignor and not accompanied by a proper bill of sale, and then in order to obtain the proceeds evidence of ownership must be established. All doubtful "holds" shall be presented to the brand committee for final approval. On June 5, 1969 a brand committee meeting was held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, attended by at least 40 members of the Stock Growers Association and by others. At this meeting the chairman introduced a couple of "hold" cases concerning the claim of the defendant and Ethel Halligan and Sons. The disposition of the proceeds of the sale of two head of cattle, both of which bore the South Dakota registered brands of Ethel Halligan and Sons and the defendant, L. D. Putnam, was for decision by the board. The proceeds were being *581 held by the South Dakota State Brand Board. At this meeting the brand committee voted to turn over the proceeds to the Halligans as there was no bill of sale from the Halligans to the defendant Putnam. The ranches and livestock operations of John Waln, L. D. Putnam and the Halligans are in close proximity in Todd County in the Rosebud country, and in addition, L. D. Putnam, who operates extensively, is also in Bennett County and Nebraska. John Waln is related to Ethel Halligan and a part of the time they pastured their cows and calves together. On October 30, 1966 the defendant contracted to purchase plaintiff's calves which were delivered November 4, 1966 by the plaintiff to defendant's scales. There were 89 steers and heifers and the plaintiff executed to the defendant a bill of sale and received payment. These were calves which plaintiff had raised, carrying a J/6 brand and with their right ears cropped off. The morning of the delivery and preceding the delivery of these calves, John Waln, assisted by a number of experienced cattlemen, including two of the defendant's hired hands, cut out a number of the Halligan cattle from his herd. After the weighing of the calves at defendant's scales, they were delivered to the corrals at defendant's main ranch in Todd County where they were then or shortly thereafter branded by defendant's hired men. Plaintiff did not attend the brand committee meeting on June 5, 1969 where the slanderous statements by Mr. Putnam are alleged to have been made, nor were Ethel Halligan and her sons in attendance. The Halligans were represented by Cleveland Bechtold, Deputy Sheriff of Todd and Tripp Counties and also brand inspector for the Stock Growers Association for Todd County. The defendant was present at this meeting. Mr. Bechtold, upon his return from the meeting informed plaintiff of the statements made by Mr. Putnam. The words of the statement claimed to have been made are the basis of the suit. Mr. Putnam denies making any such statement but admits he did make a statement to the Stock Growers Association as to what the plaintiff, John Waln, had told him in reference to these cattle and that the statement which Waln made to the defendant was the one which the defendant repeated to the Stock Growers Association on June 5, 1969 and further, defendant claims that the statement made by him to the Stock Growers Association concerning the plaintiff is a privileged communication. It is defendant's claim that the sum and substance of the statement which he made at the Stock Growers Association or brand committee meeting was in effect that John Waln had told him "that he sold me eighty nine calves and brought these four calves along with them. That's the statement I made." Further, at the meeting he admitted that he had said that John Waln had admitted to him that he had sold him these cattle. The issue presented by the pleadings is whether the alleged slanderous statement (John Waln told me that he stole those cattle and sold them to me) was made or not, and further if made were they privileged. The trial lasted four days, resulting in a verdict of $12,000 actual and $6,500 exemplary damages for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered thereon January 30, 1970. The plaintiff who is the respondent herein has made objections to what he terms "the untimeliness of these appeal proceedings". It appears from the records that the appeal was perfected on June 2, 1970 and on July 28, 1970 appellant had not then settled the record nor served assignments of error and counsel for plaintiff made a motion to dismiss the appeal. In his brief plaintiff states that no order has been entered on his motion. In this contention plaintiff is in error. There is in this Court an order, dated, signed and filed August 27, 1970, signed by the Presiding Judge, "that the motion to dismiss be and the same is hereby denied". Notice of entry of judgment was mailed to the defendant on February 4, 1970 and the defendant on May *582 20, 1970 made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, which motion was denied at a hearing on May 25, 1970. This motion for judgment n. o. v. was 105 days after notice of entry of judgment. SDCL 15-6-50(b) provides in part as follows: It also provides, "A motion for a new trial may be joined with this motion, or a new trial may be prayed for in the alternative". It is apparent that defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v. came too late. However, SDCL 15-6-59(b) provides in part that a "motion for a new trial stating the grounds thereof may be made at any time within which an appeal lies from any judgment rendered in said action." In the combined motion of the defendant the grounds relied upon by the defendant for a new trial were set forth. SDCL 15-26-2 provides in part as follows: This appeal is from the judgment and it was taken within 120 days. SDCL 15-26-19 is as follows: In Fales v. Kaupp, 83 S.D. 487, 161 N.W.2d 855, this Court held, The defendant has plead privilege. The section governing privileged communications is SDCL 20-11-5, Pocket Supplement, and is as follows: The defendant has in his appeal claimed both absolute and qualified privilege. The absolute privileges are contained in (1) and (2) above. Assuming that the defendant made the statement attributed to him by the plaintiff, we do not believe that this case is at all similar to Hackworth v. Larson, 1969, 83 S.D. 674, 165 N.W.2d 705, or Brech v. Seacat, 1969, 84 S.D. 264, 170 N.W.2d 348. In the Hackworth case we held: In the Hackworth case we held that the press release is an essential activity of public officials if within the outer perimeter of their line of duty and cited many cases to uphold this theory. This would not apply to Putnam. If the absolute privilege applies at all to Putnam it would be under that part of SDCL 20-11-5(2) as follows: "or in any other official proceeding authorized by law". In the case of McMann v. Wadler, 189 Cal. App. 2d 124, 11 Cal. Rptr. 37, before the District Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist., that Court held: The defendant then argues that the communication or statement attributed to the defendant by the plaintiff is at least qualifiedly privileged, that is under SDCL 20-11-5(3), Pocket Supplement. The difference between a qualified and an absolute *584 privilege is that malice destroys the qualified privilege but does not affect the latter. McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 175 N.W. 878. "Where a qualified privilege exists, the plaintiff has the burden of proving express malice, or malice in fact. Parr v. Warren-Lamb Lumber Co., 58 S.D. 389, 236 N.W. 291, and cases cited therein. Plaintiff must prove that the libelous statements, although privileged, were not published pursuant to the right and duty which created the privilege, but from some other motive. 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander, § 113, p. 116". Williams v. Hobbs, supra. However, this Court is also committed to the rule: "A defendant cannot come under the protection of the rule of a qualified privilege and will not be heard to say that he acted in good faith if he has given utterance to a slanderous communication with unnecessary publicity. A slanderous statement, however, incidentally overheard by a bystander does not remove the communication from the protection of the privilege; this, in itself, does not indicate a malicious intent. Fahr v. Hayes, 50 N.J.L. 275, 13 A. 261; McKenzie v. Wm. J. Burns Detective Agency, 149 Minn. 311, 183 N.W. 516. See, also, note, Ann.Cas.1917E, 699." Parr v. Warren-Lamb Lumber Co., supra. It is our opinion that if the defendant gave utterance to the words he is charged by the plaintiff with having made, he has given unnecessary publicity to a slanderous statement. Putnam, by his own testimony attended the meeting at Sioux Falls for the purpose of collecting some pasture bill which he claimed due him for pasturing the two head of cattle on the "hold". He was not entitled to any "hold" proceeds if he had purchased stolen cattle from Waln. The theft of the cattle, if stolen, and their subsequent sale to him would not have created ownership in him entitling him to either the cattle or the proceeds upon their sale. The charge he is alleged to have made and given publicity to before a public meeting attended by a large number of people, not all of whom were members of the Stock Growers Association would be a slanderous statement because it would charge the plaintiff with the crime of larceny, or more accurately that plaintiff had admitted or confessed to the crime of larceny of the "hold" cattle. Consequently, it is our opinion that under the facts of this case, there would not be any qualified privilege in the defendant at the time and place and under the circumstances they were alleged to have been uttered. This is not to be interpreted that there may not under certain conditions be a privilege for an otherwise slanderous statement to be made to the brand committee meeting. To illustrate the point we make more clearly, it would be a different situation if Waln had been one of the claimants of the proceeds of the "hold" cattle, and the committee was then confronted with the question whether Waln was entitled to such proceeds as opposed to Ethel Halligan and Sons. The defendant's alleged slanderous statement would be pertinent, relevant and helpful to the committee in making its decision. These cattle did not belong to Waln nor did he claim them or the proceeds, but to Ethel Halligan and Sons and apparently they were never the property of Putnam, or at least that was the finding of the brand committee, even though Putnam's brand was on them. However, the burden is still on the plaintiff to prove the utterance by the defendant of the alleged slanderous words. We have reviewed the evidence at length. The transcript of the trial proceedings consists of nearly 600 pages and it is our opinion that the plaintiff has failed in his proofs of the alleged slanderous words. We have made such review fully aware that in determining whether or not there is any substantial evidence supporting the verdict, plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence reviewed in a light most favorable to him and to have all conflicts resolved in favor of the verdict. Barnhart v. Ahlers, 79 S.D. 186, 110 N.W.2d 125. In 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander § 194, it is stated: In the case of Fleet v. Tichenor, 156 Cal. 343, 104 P. 458, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in which she charged in her complaint that the defendant spoke of her the following words: "Mrs. Fleet entered my house and stole some of my jewelry, and still has it". The California Court held, The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is the word "stole". We do not believe the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant used this word, or a word of similar import. To sustain his burden of proof in this regard the plaintiff introduced two witnesses, Cleveland Bechtold and Ernie Bailey. Cleveland Bechtold had attended the meeting. He testified to the word "stole" having been used, but he also testified, on direct examination, as follows: And again: Mr. Bechtold was plaintiff's principal witness. He is the one who had brought back from the meeting the information to Mr. Waln. This is hardly satisfactory evidence on which to find a slanderous statement to have been made as alleged in the complaint. On cross-examination Mr. Bechtold testified as follows: The only other witness plaintiff had to establish the slander as alleged in the complaint was Ernie Bailey who is an investigator for the Nebraska Brand Committee. He was in attendance at the Stock Growers meeting at Sioux Falls, accompanying Mr. Bechtold. On direct examination, he testified in part as follows: On cross-examination he testified in part: 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander § 70 a. (2) states: And it has also been held that there is no material variance between the words alleged "did you get the $117" and the words proved"Did you pick up that money." American Stores Company v. Byrd, 229 Md. 5, 181 A.2d 333. We do not believe that the testimony of the two witnesses in behalf of the plaintiff is sufficient proof of the publication of the slander as charged in plaintiff's complaint. The defendant as a part of his case called Mark Trask, chairman of the brand committee, Frank Wilson, a member of the South Dakota Stock Growers Association, Grant Otis, a member of the Stock Growers Association, Tom Houck, a member of the Stock Growers Association, Claire Coomes, a member of the brand committee, and Jim Holloway, chief brand inspector, all of whom were in attendance at the meeting in Sioux Falls on June 5, 1969, all of whom testified in effect that they heard Mr. Putnam speak at the meeting, but they did not hear him use the word "steal" or call the plaintiff a thief nor hear the defendant make a statement concerning the plaintiff as charged in the complaint. Some of these men testified that as near as they could remember, Mr. Putnam stated that he had gotten these cattle from John Waln and one of these witnesses stated that he was sitting but two seats away from defendant Putnam at the meeting. We have called attention in this opinion to the fact that there were at least 40 livestock growers in attendance. Their names and addresses are set forth in two exhibits. Aside from about four of the members present from outside the state, all of the names set forth in the exhibit have their residences in South Dakota. A part of them, other than those actually testifying, must have been available as witnesses to testify as to the statement made. At least their nonavailability appears nowhere in the record. Since the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff does not support the verdict, we hold that the court erred in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The judgment appealed from is reversed with *588 directions that the defendant's motion for a new trial be granted. HANSON, P. J., concurs in result. BIEGELMEIER, J., concurs specially. WOLLMAN, J., dissents. DOYLE, J., not having been a member of the court at the time of argument, took no part in this decision. BIEGELMEIER, Judge (concurring specially). I concur in the opinion insofar as it holds the evidence is insufficient to sustain the jury verdict and the judgment must be reversed. While the proceedings appear to have been informal as they sometimes are before administrative boards, the Board had an issue before it, and statements were made, including the much differing ones set out in Judge Winans' opinion. If not directed to ownership of the animals, they may have been pertinent to a possible claim of an agister's lien. Defendant did not follow up his motions for a directed verdict so as to preserve claims therein presented on appeal; had that been done, I believe the statement alleged in the complaint was a privileged communication within SDCL 20-11-5 as it was "one made * * * (2) * * * in any other official proceeding authorized by law". See opinion and reasoning of dissenting judges in Emo v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Company, 1971, N.D., 183 N.W.2d 508, 517. WOLLMAN, Judge (dissenting). There was testimony from plaintiff's witness Bechtold, elicited principally during cross-examination, from which the jury could find that defendant had made the statement charged in plaintiff's complaint. Drawing all legitimate inferences in favor of the verdict in the light of the record made in the trial court, I would hold that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.