Garten v. Tibbitts

California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 1967 No. Civ. No. 803Published

Before: Conley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a newspaper fails to qualify as a 'newspaper of general circulation' under Government Code section 6003 if the mechanical reproduction of its copies occurs outside the county for more than 50 percent of the year, regardless of whether the process uses traditional type or offset lithography.

Issues

Whether the 'printing' requirement of Government Code section 6003 is satisfied when the mechanical reproduction of a newspaper occurs outside the county of circulation.
Whether the term 'printed' in Government Code section 6003 is limited to the traditional impression of type on paper or encompasses modern offset lithography.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the general mechanical means of multiplying copies of a newspaper was what the Legislature referred to in the second paragraph of section 6003 of the Government Code”

CONLEY, P. J. Michael P. Garten, publisher of the “News-Ledser,” a paper of West Sacramento in Yolo County, filed a petition in the superior court to have its standing as a newspaper of general circulation in the county ascertained and established. (Gov. Code, § 6020.) In due course, the owner [208]and publisher of the “Woodland Record,” a competing newspaper in Yolo County filed' objections to the petition. After the publication of a requisite notice to the public, a formal hearing was held and the superior court denied the petition. While several points were urged against the granting of the petition, the case was decided on one issue only; the trial court correctly concluded that the “printing” of the paper on a monthly average for more than 50 percent of the year previous .to the filing of the petition took place in a county other than Yolo (Gov. Code, § 6003). The copies of the “News-Ledger” circulated to the subscribers were produced by the offset printing method. Generally speaking, all of the work, mechanical and otherwise, necessary to produce the master sheet df this weekly paper was done in Yolo County, but the press work, except for three issues, was effected in the City and County of San Francisco where the offset printing method was used; this process of duplication is based upon photography of the master sheet and not by the impression of type on paper.

The witness, Feher, testified on cross-examination:

,“Bx Mb. Fbiedman: . . . Mr. Feher, the papers that actually go.out to the subscribers which were duplicated or made in San Francisco- never had any impressing of type on that particular paper done in-West Sacramento, did they?

“A Mr. Friedman,' in the offset process, there is no impressing of type on paper except that which we do ourselves in our own plant. There is merely duplication. Transference of an"image from a negative to a master to a blanket, and it is the blanketi-^the rubber blanket that comes in contact with the paper. There is no type that comes in contact with the paper in the press work.

“Q So the answer to my question, am I correct, that the answer is yes, there is no impressing of type on the paper in West Sacramento that actually goes out to the individual subscriber ?

“ AI am afraid I will have to say yes.

“Fbiedman: .Thank you. . .

“Cqubt-: The actual paper received through the mail, the print or pictures,, whatever is on there, .is not done in West Sacramento no matter how it got there. It was placed on this paper in San Francisco?,

Garten v. Tibbitts

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief