*1 695 principal in full pay costs of sale and due on interest may note, makers of the note become liable over for the deficiency Such proceeding. improp- in some other cost of sale was against Forgey erly Forgey taxed William and Minnette in this case judgment judgment modified in respect. and the should be alsо modified as to tax the costs of this case to should be so Eva Forgey. Forgey, as well as William and Minnette accordingly judgment It ordered that on both counts favor Forgey reversed be defendant Eva and that the cause remanded judg- decree trial court with to enter a new instructions for in granting prayed the relief both ment сase together Forgey, petition against of’his all of the defendants counts judgment against of the defendants for costs this case all in the Forgey. concurs; Walker, J., result. White, J., concurs Publishing L. Appellant, I. v. Association. Davis, Missourian (2d) S. W. 650. August 6,
Division 1929. Two. *2 Dorsey Ruby W. Hulen appellant. M. Shackelford (& Harris, Price Clark, Boggs Alexander and & Peierson for re- spondent. *3 of defendant’s close At the for libel.
DAVIS, an action C. This a ver- court, returned trial evidence, jury, direction of the the the at trial, newa mоtion an unsuccessful and, dict after defendant, verdict. on the judgment entered plaintiff appealed from the finding plaintiff warrants behalf of The evidence adduced on herein, a mentioned times was, all plaintiff, contractor, a at municipal corpora- a Columbia, city of member the council of in newspаper a publisher tion, was that defendant to build arranged contract, letting a city. city, 1924 the without was Loomis employed One water-and-light plant. an addition to its superintend, tlie construction thereof. To matters, facilitate city appropriated fund, council which in deposited in bank Gray, secretary, R. IT. Conner, superin- the name of and A. D. Light Department. & tendent, paid of Water in- bills, They cluding payrolls, they reported every council, which two weeks to the vouchers, resulting council, by ordinance, ap- would during propriate equivalent expended period. sums Loomis, partner once with him been associated twenty years. completion business for fifteen or On of the ad- during again employ plaintiff. Loomis, dition he entered plaintiff knowledge, appropriated and without his absence equipment machinery owned use certain construction equipment machinery This were used Loomis in nothing the construction of the addition. Plaintiff knew of its use purpose, but, until it аppropriated had been for that after discover- ing acquiesced it, He and Loomis stated he its use Loomis. understanding agreement no was to there was paid by on the for the use Work commenced thereof. completed May, 1925. September, 1924, addition in 1925, presented council, On June Loomis a statement to thе Columbia, & Light addressed to Water Committee hire stating, substance, proceeded this neces- rent L. sary consisting' etc., from Mr. I. equipment, mixer, of a concrete Davis, appears On notation: $403.20. amount due statement Approved “O. K. council. June No. 870. 15, 1925, show that 15, 1925.” The council of June minutes of the Fund, the account ordered Plаnt Construction *4 voting. 20, 1925, Gray Donner executed Davis, Mr. On June and not plaintiff, $403.20 on Fund for check the Power Extension Plant by bookkeeper to his account deposited which was his indorsed and develops. Plain- accepted, in the bank and which he as the evidence making any charges tiff council that he ivas not stated told the whаtever. substance, 16, 1925, de- newspaper issues of its of June the legality pay- of the that,
fendant commented after a discussion of following rendered, by ments the to council members for services necessary report by had certain Loomis that he rented equipment Davis, pay Councilman plaintiff, from the council decided erecting equipment used in the water plaintiff, for of the rent certain light plant and addition. 12, 1925, com- newspaper article, appearing on November
The Manager City Plan of plained libelous, “Discussion of as is headed: Light &Water of Tonight. Comparative Statement Advocates Issue on Passed City Has Not Council $1534.22. Plаnt. No Invoices for Fund For New Building.” Addition to article, substance, The open-air that an narrates discussion of the city-manager form of government naming will held, be places of meeting and the principal speakers. pertinent portion article, after stat- ing comparative that a statement of water-and-light department years ending July, for the 1924, and July, 19’25, has been by made adoption those city-manager interested in the plan, reads: “This by statement shows that the fund created the council for the construction water-and-light addition plant has not regular made been an appropriation from the council. The books water-and-light deрartment $7726.56 still spent show that from this fund, expenditures yet but the have approved by not been approval the council. given by This will have be the council and appropriation replace revolving an made to this in the fund, amount Gray order that R. H. A. may complete D. Donner their department records former officials of the and' custodians this fund.
“No water-and-light depart- invoices filed in are expenditure yet $7726.56 ment cover approved approved by the council. Of this amount not the coun- $251 cil check for J. E. ITathman and one for to Ira L. Davis.” 1925, ordinance, plain-
On passed November council an voting aye, mayor, reads: ordinаnce, tiff which later compliance “Section 1. That in with the recommendations books, there Light Department & there auditors of the Water Power hereby Light & Fund to transferred from Water is here- $7726.56 and that be and there Plant Fund the sum of there Light Water & Emergency Fund transferred to $124.64. Fund sum in force from and be
“Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect approval.” passage and after its following occurred:
On cross-examination Well, if “Q. job? A. much You wanted to donate necessary. they never necessary’? A. If had “Q. you mean by‘if What do charges would any never been anything me offered —there day. have this been to A. against them? claim “Q. any present You didn’t intend to
No. *5 A. they gave you? anything “Q. you intend receive Rut did it, a donation. Well, as I took church. a contribution to it was like a do- awas claim “Q. payment your that of You considered you? Yes, A. sir.” nation in evidence a written defendant there was introduced behalf of employed, had in the summer
report of auditors who' been of of Power Plant by city Columbia, to examine the of рaid $7726.56 out report Fund. The states that Extension regular way in back to the fund appropriated been fund not by in was the check June council. Included this amount of accepted plaintiff. by A note 20, 1925, $403.20, issued to and had been to lo- that the auditors unable commented among which the items, check cate for certain invoiсes included. in published in its issue an article Defendant introduced evidence reading: of 23, 1925, October AppROVed. Yet
“Items Not ‘‘ approved paid Of the out that not been the coun- amounts have cil, represented by invoices on file the office of the is secretary un- water-and-light department. The auditors were Of amоunting $1534.22. able to locate invoices amount show, represented by $523 an 'er- which are no invoices is there an error in en- represents ror in refund on cents payroll, tering temporary fund paid a The bills that check. were auditors, were as follows: for which no were found invoices $356.64; $14.60; Fellows, stone, N. Employees’ J. Cotton payroll, freight $554.40; emergency fund, on car Company, cement, Lumber $14.87; Wa- cement, $87.78; Tiger Company, drayage; Transfer $1.60; payroll, Ira Railway, $101.13; George Roberts, freight, bash payroll, L. Davis, $403.20. temporary fund that have
“In the from the list bills $251 yet been council there also E. payroll.” J. Hathman for opinion. if facts, any, appear Other will in the сourse directing I. verdict for defend- The action of the trial court in objected to ant is assailed. Plaintiff first asserts per se, charged is libelous while a member because guilty of Columbia, council of illegally ob- corruption
graft and in office knowledge approval of money from without tained council. as does We are view or construe unable to charge, expressly impliedly, It either does develops guilty- graft corruption The article office. those interested comparative made referred statement state- adoption city-manager plan government, *6 irregularities ment shows in tbe account of the water-аnd-light fund, which it necessary was city council to regular make by ap- proval and appropriation complete to the records of the former department officials and custodians of the fund. We are unable to see that charged plaintiff graft with or corruption, accepted because he city from the a cheek for an item city which the council had approved. is not directed either to a misfeasance or of plaintiff, malfeasance wholly but to an irregularity part on the city council, resulting from technical ignorance of procedure correct or inadvertence. The statemеnt that the fund had regularly not been approved and appropriated by the city council in no plaintiff wise reflects upon personally. It merely a synopsis of a city to the effect that the council strictly failed legal to requirements follow respect with appropriations. to As the article apрears, it is a news, mere matter of a resume of a report without criticism. It is true that the article states that no invoice respect with to a check plaintiff to is filed in records, and that this amount council, but so, even it cannot be said that either charges plaintiff fact graft or cor- ruption, illegally money city. obtained from the Suffice say it city to mayor it, council and the least, deemed at question debatable money regularly as to had whether the been legally appropriated, for, 16, 1925, on November council passed an appropriating money, among others, covering ordinance mayor item of plaintiff, signed it. Bе may, that as it plaintiff the article to mean cannot be construed that graft guilty corruption in office. charged II. complained It is further that said that the article unlawfully plaintiff, city council, guilty hav a member of the by it, ing done an and work interest a contract with insti and its supplies an<^™ for said goes complained no further than tutiоns. The article city, from the a check stating received created through department, from a fund water-and-light its water-and-light its of an addition council for the construction among check to paid by department, amount so this but that appropriation, regular by an others, not been made stated, in addition, the articlе appropriated. Avouldhave to be water-and-light in the effect, no invoice was found that the state shows The evidence cheek. department, to cover this council, he advocated wherein Loomis ment proceeded he equipment, recites plaintiff the use ad- Plaintiff necessary equipment rent hire this that, pursuance presented mitted the statement by Loomis approval council and council, as noted on statement, accepted he and received the benefit of the check. The receipt If itself into this: acceptance matter resolves *7 by plaintiff equipment check in of the use of his awas vio- 8237, 1919, Revised proscribing' lation of Section Statutes a of- indirectly being any directly or in ficer from interested contract un- by city, any city, any work or or in done the der the of its institu- charges, true, was tions, plaintiff then if article so it may the complain. hand, money if acceptance On the other the of the not was law, the money not then statement that he a violation received the true, it libelous, not for it was as he admits. If was no was offense money the in to under circumstances detailed the receive the evi- plaintiff dence, then it was no offense for the article to state that re- money. It the fact stated was true. cannot be ceived The construed import plaintiff its by plain to mean than innuendo more re- from the out of a fund accepted the check created ceived and water-and-light plant. to its In- for construction of an addition the true, only libelous, but, not it was not asmuch the statement was as being ampli- incapable it circumstances, was the facts and under innuendo. fied inducement and though article that,
III. Plaintiff even the was further contends privileged knew it was qualifiedly comment, still defendant as a privilege. portion destroyed The of the falsity and its the false filed the “No invoices were in article to false reads: be expendi- to the watеr-and-light department cover yet approved by $7726.56 not the $1534.22 ture of the council amount not Of this council. to Ira E. and one paid to J. Hathman $251 was check for complained of falsity of To demonstrate L. Davis.” knowledge falsity, plaintiff refers of its actual and defendant’s show that 1925, which tends to of defendant June pay- legаlity of that, after a discussion commented the issue following rendered, services members for city to council ments equipment certain had rented them that he by Loomis to report pay plaintiff voted to city council decided erecting water city in by the equipment used the rent of certain light addition. accountants, рublic auditors, certified evidence shows and accounts books audit the city employed were Columbia, and, order city light department water appropriated temporary fund with .the bring the account accord ex- in their report addition, they recommended erect penditures temporary from the fund, aggregating $7726.56, ap- proved by city council, included which the check was A paid plaintiff. note to stated the auditors' were invoice, unable to among locate an others, covering the check to (a) though Even the evidence tends to publi- establish that cation false, because it was shown that the council aрproved presented by account for $403.20, paid plain- Loomis and later tiff, yet, though as publication, even respect, false does charge plaintiff turpitude, with moral or a violation of law or expose crime, public hatred, commission of a him to ridicule or contempt, per Moreover, se. plаin not libelous it is a state- ment of incapable ampli- facts that inducement and innuendo are fying. money Inasmuch related, received the as say libelous, otherwise, pub- per sufficient that it is se person, money lish that a though councilman, even he be city’s building approval from the fund council. without *8 (b) ruling Supplementing immediately preceding, our think we publication qualiñedly privileged. The evidence shows that public employed certified accountants were audit water-and-light department, books accounts of the and that report mayor their was addressed to the council of the public Columbia. thus matter of con- The became a cern and public interest, quasi-public speak, document so to gave others, provided right defendant to communicate it to quoted fairly good substantially epitomized defendant and in faith Cox, its ex v. Mo. meaning. contents and rel. [State alleged defamatory S. W. must be It is the an rule that 837.] four entirety interpreted read in from its сorners. its [State Conceding comment, ex the check Cox, supra.] rel. v. standing city council, approved by was not in its alone, false, yet, the article when connection read thought that technical entirety, nothing in it than the we see more ap- irregularity water-and-light department exists relative to the completе propriations, irregularity and that, to obviate regularly appropriate records, necessary the council to it will be was in- publication though say the funds. Even we could city council yet, such, criticised the criticism, tended if was as a was a entirety, rather than in its Taken qualiñedly and was public interest summary fair of a document privileged. CC., concur. Cooley, judgment Kenwood and is affirmed. Davis, C., adopted foregoing opinion by
PER CURIAM: The concur. judges All opinion court.