Bettner v. Holt
Before: Foote
Synopsis
Libel—Breach of Trust by-Agent—False Publication Charging is Libelous — Obloquy. — The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged libel. The plaintiff, as the agent of certain residents of the town of Riverside, who were interested in the cultivation of fruit, had taken specimens of fruit grown by them for exhibition at the World’s Fair in New Orleans. The alleged libel consisted in the publication in a newspaper of an article, quoted in the opinion, in which the conduct of the plaintiff as such agent was severely criticised. The complaint alleged that the article intended to charge, and was so understood by its readers, that the plaintiff, in violation of Ms trust, had corruptly failed to make a proper exhibit of fruit sent by the contributors, but had appropriated it himself, and entered it in his own name and for his own benefit; that the exhibit had not been conducted in an honorable or upright manner, and that he had failed to make any report of his actions as such agent, because the report, if given, would disclose his corrupt and dishonest acts. Held, that the article was calculated to expose the plaintiff to obloquy, and if false, was libelous.
Id. —Obloquy Defined. —To expose a person to obloquy is to expose him to censure and reproach.
Foote, C. Bettner brought an action against Holt for a libelous and unprivileged publication.
The complaint was demurred to as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; the demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff not having filed an amended complaint within the time allowed by the court, judgment for costs, etc., was given in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed.
The pleading which was on demurrer held insufficient is as follows:—
[271]“The plaintiff for cause of action against the defendant alleges,—
“That the plaintiff and others, being at the time residents of Riverside and vicinity in this county, and largely interested in the raising of oranges and other fruits in that locality, sent a collection of such fruits to the World's Fair held at New Orleans in 1884-85, to be at such fair entered and exhibited for premiums; and this plaintiff and H. J. Rudisill attended such fair in charge of said fruit, as the agents and representatives of all such contributors, to see that said fruit was properly entered and exhibited at said World’s Fair.
“That the plaintiff performed his duty as such agent and representative, and thereafter, on or about the-day of April, 1885, returned to his place of residence at said Riverside.
“That thereafter, on April 25, 1885, the defendant, being at the time the editor and publisher of a weekly newspaper published at said Riverside, and called the Press and Horticulturist, published in said newspaper, in a regular issue thereof of that date, an article entitled ‘Intelligent Report from New Orleans’ (referring to said World's Fair), in which article the defendant used and published the following language:—■
“‘After a lapse of several weeks, we are enabled to publish a report from the citrus-fruit contest at New Orleans, in which Riverside and our readers generally throughout California are so universally interested. Although we had two representatives at New Orleans [meaning this plaintiff and H. J. Rudisill], and one of them [meaning this plaintiff] returned home with this information in his pocket two weeks ago, yet we had to wait till the Florida papers bring us this information, so that it could be given to our people, who furnished the fruit with which to make an exhibit,’—meaning the fruit in charge of this plaintiff and H. J. Rudisill aforesaid. Here followed in said article the report referred to.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)