Byrne v. Funk

Citations

• 38 Wash. 506
• 80 P. 772
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1200

Syllabus

<p>Libel—Wobds Libelous Pee Se—Publishing of Officer That He Was a Liar and Poltroon. It is libelous per se to publish of a public officer that certain figures disputed by him were, at the time, Known by him to be true, followed by an offer to forfeit $50 if the writer could not convince the plaintiff, before his friends, of being a “liar and a poltroon,” if he would accompany the writer to the public records.</p> <p>Libel—Privileged Communications—Defenses. Such a publication is not privileged, in the absence of express malice, by reason of the fact that defendant was drawn into a newspaper controversy through attacks by the defendant, since the right to defend oneself does not extend to statements unnecessarily defamatory.</p> <p>Same—Criticism of Public Officer. A statement, if false, is not privileged as fair comment and criticism of a public officer, although made in good faith.</p> <p>Same—Qualified Privilege—Question for Court. It is for the court to determine whether a publication is qualifiedly privileged, and it is not error to refuse to submit the question to the jury.</p> <p>Libel—Malice—Not Element Under the Code—Statutes— Construction—Special Verdict. Under Bal. Code, § 7087, defining libel, malice is not a necessary element of civil libel, hence a special finding of no malice is not inconsistent with a general verdict for the plaintiff.</p>