We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
C. A. SORENSEN
V .
RICHARD F. WOOD and KFAB BROADCASTING COiffAl’IY, A CORPORATION SUPREJilS COURT OF NEBRASKA NO. 2S107
PERRY, VAN PELT & f/LARTI for appellant: FRED C. FOSTER and MAX V. BEGHTOL for
appellee .
OPINION OF THE COURT J-ojie 10, 1932
GOSS, C. J. — C. A. Sorensen, who was a candidate for reelection as attorney'" general, Brought this action for $100,000 damages against Richard F. Wood, who was the speaker, and against KFAB Broadcasting Company, owner and operator of the station over which the speech was Broadcasted from Lincoln, The jury found in favor of plaintiff as a^’ainst Wood, assessing damages at one dollar and foiuad in favor of defendant company. Judgment was entered on the verdict against 7/ood for one dollar, aBsolving the Broadcasting company from liaBility and awarding it execution for its costs. Plaintiff appealed.
TBie petition charged that, about 6:30 p.m. on Aug. 11, 1930, Being the evening Before the Nebraska primary election, certain false and libelous state¬ ments, concerning plaintiff, contained in an article composed and Broadcasted By Wood, were published and circulated to a large radio audience By means of machinery and equipment supplied By defendant company; that a copy of Wood's address was available for use of the company Before its publication over the radio, that a representative of the company who introduced and vouched for Wood, was present and heapd him read the article and thereby adopted and pub¬ lished said statements; that in the course of reading and publishing said ar¬ ticle and, with the intention of injuring plaintiff in his profession and reputation, and for the purpose of making his election to tbie office of attor¬ ney general more difficult, defendant did maliciously publish the following language :
"In his (the plaintiff's) acceptance of the Attorney General's office he took an oath Before God and man that he would uphold the law justly and honestly. His promises to man are for naught and his oath to God is sacrilege, for he is a nonbeliever, an irreligious libertine, a mad man and a fool."
To show other things contained in the article together v/ith their connec¬ tion and innuendo, as alleged by plaintiff, we reproduce three other para¬ graphs of the petition:
9^ ^ ))e
"7th. That in the same article, the defendants, with the same intent and purpose, did maliciously write, read and publish of and concerning the