Arthur W. Newbury v. Harold Robert Love

D.C. Circuit

Arthur W. Newbury v. Harold Robert Love

242 F.2d 372

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 1957

Docket13245_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 F.2d 372 (Arthur W. Newbury v. Harold Robert Love) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur W. Newbury v. Harold Robert Love, 242 F.2d 372 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, discharged from Government employment, consulted an attorney in an effort to obtain reinstatement. The attorney telephoned the appellant, the Government personnel officer involved, and discussed the case with him while appellee listened on an extension. In the course of the conversation, appellant said that appellee "had been fired on charges and that the charges were that [appellee] had taken papers out of the files at Jeffersonville, Indiana, Quartermaster Depot and given them to Senator Capehart without authority. * * * And that he had been found guilty of that by the Civil Service Commission, and other charges.” Based on this matter appellee was awarded a verdict of $100 in his defamation suit. 1 This appeal resulted from the judgment entered on that verdict.

Appellant contended below that the statements complained of were not actionable, even if defamatory, because (1) he made them in connection with his official duties; and (2) he made them in reply to an inquiry from appellee’s attorney and his reply was not malicious and did not go beyond the inquiry. National Disabled Soldiers’ League v. Haan, 1925, 55 App.D.C. 243, 4 F.2d 436. The District Court overruled these contentions.

We think it clear that, in the circumstances of this case, appellant’s statements were made in the proper performance of his official duties and are, therefore, absolutely privileged. Cf. Colpoys v. Gates, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 193, 118 F.2d 16. Since a judgment of dismissal should have been entered on this ground, 2 we need not decide any other questions presented.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

1

. The suit had been based upon other allegedly defamatory material as well, but those matters were dismissed out of the case and are not here involved.

2

. This defense was adequately, if inartistically, asserted in the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, discharged from Government employment, consulted an attorney in an effort to obtain reinstatement. The attorney telephoned the appellant, the Government personnel officer involved, and discussed the case with him while appellee listened on an extension. In the course of the conversation, appellant said that appellee "had been fired on charges and that the charges were that [appellee] had taken papers out of the files at Jeffersonville, Indiana, Quartermaster Depot and given them to Senator Capehart without authority. * * * And that he had been found guilty of that by the Civil Service Commission, and other charges.” Based on this matter appellee was awarded a verdict of $100 in his defamation suit. 1 This appeal resulted from the judgment entered on that verdict.

Appellant contended below that the statements complained of were not actionable, even if defamatory, because (1) he made them in connection with his official duties; and (2) he made them in reply to an inquiry from appellee’s attorney and his reply was not malicious and did not go beyond the inquiry. National Disabled Soldiers’ League v. Haan, 1925, 55 App.D.C. 243, 4 F.2d 436. The District Court overruled these contentions.

We think it clear that, in the circumstances of this case, appellant’s statements were made in the proper performance of his official duties and are, therefore, absolutely privileged. Cf. Colpoys v. Gates, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 193, 118 F.2d 16. Since a judgment of dismissal should have been entered on this ground, 2 we need not decide any other questions presented.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

1

. The suit had been based upon other allegedly defamatory material as well, but those matters were dismissed out of the case and are not here involved.

2

. This defense was adequately, if inartistically, asserted in the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F.2d 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-w-newbury-v-harold-robert-love-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack