434 S.W.2d 550 | Mo. | 1968
This is an action for damages for libel, in which there was a jury verdict for plaintiff for $300 actual and $1,000 punitive damages.
Defendant filed a posttrial motion to set aside the verdict and judgment for plaintiff and to enter judgment in accordance with defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, on these grounds:
“1. Plaintiff was a public official and the allegedly libelous statements related solely to the manner in which plaintiff performed his duties as a public official. Accordingly, thé doctrine of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 [84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686], is applicable, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover unless the evidence would support findings that (a) the allegedly libelous statements were false, and (b) they were published by defendant with actual malice, i. e., with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not.
“2. The evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding that the allegedly libelous statements were false.
“3. The evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding that defendant published the allegedly libelous statements with actual malice.”
Appellant asserts that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction for the reason that the construction of the federal constitution is involved. Appellant’s jurisdictional statement recites the following: “In the court below, judgment was entered for plaintiff-respondent upon a determination by the court that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support such a judgment. In so holding, the trial court construed the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution so as to permit recovery by such a plaintiff notwithstanding that the allegedly libelous statements were not statements of fact, but rather statements of opinion on truthfully stated facts, and notwithstanding that the defendant honestly believed the allegedly libelous statements to be true. Defendant-appellant submits that the trial court erred in this construction and that, under a proper construction of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a judgment for plaintiff-respondent. The construction of the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is thus involved in this appeal.”
Appellant’s basic contention, as disclosed by his posttrial motion, brief and
Under the foregoing authorities we are obliged to rule that we have no jurisdiction on the ground that the construction of the constitution is involved and, no other ground for the exercise of our jurisdiction appearing, the cause is transferred to the Kansas City Court of Appeals.
PER CURIAM:
The foregoing opinion by HOUSER, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.
All of the Judges concur.