Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WILSON v. STOCKHOLDERS' PUB. CO., Inc., et al.*
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants after the sustaining of a general demurrer without leave to amend in an action for damages for libel. The sole question involved is whether or not the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The newspaper articles which were alleged to be libelous charged the plaintiff with having sold to the county of Los Angeles $75,000 worth of “impractical” teletype machines, and that they were subsequently stored in the basement of the County Hospital, where they “gathered dust and cobwebs”; that thereafter, over a period of time, the plaintiff charged and collected from the county $4,357.93 as maintenance or service fee on the “junked equipment” so stored in the basement and “gathering dust and cobwebs.” In headlines above one of the articles were the words, “L. A. Taxpayers ‘Stung’ For $75,000.” We go to defendants' brief to find the reasons which defendants assign for believing the complaint to be defective. These reasons are stated as follows: “First: That there was no sufficient denial of the truth of the articles complained of. * * * That allegations of falsity and denials of truth are obviously couched in artfully conjunctive form, resulting in the main in no real denials. Second: That it is the right of the court to determine, where words are not libelous per se, but if they have a possible double meaning, whether or not the innuendo and colloquium or matters of inducement pleaded are fairly sustained by the articles or whether in truth the innuendo enlarges the scope of the articles and begets the libel.”
With regard to the defendants' first contention, we are satisfied that as against a general demurrer without leave to amend, the denials of the truth of the articles were sufficient. Had these contentions which are now set forth in defendants' brief been urged by way of special demurrer for ambiguity, the court might well have sustained the demurrer as to some of them. But to sustain a general demurrer without leave to amend in a libel suit, where the alleged libelous articles are long, merely because some of the statements which are alleged to be false are couched in conjunctive form, does not comport with the effort which courts constantly make to try cases on the merits.
The second contention of defendants is built upon the premise that the articles are not libelous per se. We are of the opinion that the articles are libelous per se. No man who cherishes his reputation in the community for honesty and integrity would want it falsely said of him that he had sold $75,000 worth of impractical equipment to the county and after the equipment had been stored in the basement to gather dust and cobwebs that he charged the county as a maintenance and service fee the sum of $4,357.93. Nor would he want it falsely said of him that he “stung” the taxpayers for $75,000. On their face, the statements tend to expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy, and to cause him to be shunned and avoided, and to injure him in his occupation. Section 45, Civil Code. The defendants admit that the article “was intended to be a definite and severe criticism of the board of supervisors.” The defendants also admit “There is a ‘dig’ at the county–a somewhat sarcastic statement–with respect to their having paid over a period of many months or years for a service which they could have terminated at any time. * * *” There were two parties to the reported transaction, the board of supervisors on the one hand and the plaintiff on the other, and it is obvious to us that the “definite and severe criticism,” the “dig,” was applicable to both parties alike. For the reasons stated, the judgment must be reversed, with directions that the trial court may entertain a special demurrer or a motion to strike if the defendants desire to present them.
Judgment reversed.
CRAIL, Justice.
We concur: STEPHENS, P. J.; FRICKE, Justice pro tem.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 10253.
Decided: May 24, 1935
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)