Majority
'May 9.
FENDANT).......
....................
*June 26.
AND
LOUIS
CHARLES
BRLANGER
RESPONDENT. (PLAINTIFF).......................
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR LOWER CANADA (APPEAL SIDE).
Judgment of the Court
TASCHEREAUJ.-The controversy between the parties in this case relates to the control and editorship of a certain newspaper, called Le Progrs de I'Est, published in the city of Sherbrooke.
To avoid confusion, owing to the similarity of names, I will call the plaintiff, respoudent, simply Charles, and the defendant, appellant, Arthur.
The document upon which Charles sues Arthur, is dated the 24th February, 1890, and reads as follows : The parties, plaintiff and defendant who Uad heretofore published the said newspaper as partners, or joint owners:
Se donnent mutuellement quittance de tous comptes et demandes pour toutes les affaires qu'elles out fait ensemble comme 6diteurs et propri~taires du journal Le Progras de PEst, et imprimeurs, depuis l'entrde du dit Arthur B6langer h Patelier jusqu'% ce jour, et ce dernier s'engage A acquitter seul les dettes contract6es au nom de B4langer et
Compagnie, de manibre que le dit Charles B6langer n'en soit point recherch6.
2. Le dit Arthur B6langer prend A lui seul, A partir de ce jour, latelier d'imprimerie et le journal b titre de propridtaire et d'imprimeur, et s'engage b continuer la publication du dit journal et a donner la pr~fdrence au dit Charles B6langer, dans le cas il voudrait vendre;
3. Le dit Charles Blanger devient, b partir de ce jour, directeur et r6dacteur du dit journal, son nom devant paraitre comme directeur en tate du-dit journal et pour ses services et son influence comme tel, le
After carrying on the business for a time under this .
agreement, and publishing the paper as a supporter of the Liberal party, a dispute arose in 1891 between the parties as to the support to be given to the Liberal candidate in Sherbrooke, at an election then pending, and Arthur, not pleased at the stand Charles intended to take and actually took in relation thereto, dismissed him from the editorship.
Hence the present action by Charles, who asks by his conclusions, that he be declared to be the " rdacteur" and " directeur " of the newspaper in question, to have his name inserted in the paper, as such, and that he be declared to be entitled to the editorial control of the paper, and that defendant be ordered to grant him editorial control of the paper, and to deliver to him the exchanges; that he be held thereto by all legal means, and that he be condemned to pay $5,000 as damages to him, the plaintiff.
Arthur pleaded to this action that he had a right to dismiss the plaintiff as he had done. That plea, in my opinion, has been conclusively established. It cannot be questioned that under the agreement between the parties, above mentioned, Arthur was vested with the full ownership of this paper, with power to sell it at any time, and thtt Charles became thereafter the salaried employee and editor of and for Arthur, the owner.
The document says so in plain terms, and no surrounding circumstances can be admitted to make it say the contrary.
That being so, the respondent's contention that he was in a position of absolute independence towards Arthur is utterly untenable. It is true that by the last part of art. of the said agreement, Arthur bound himself not to put an end to Charles's employment as editor, without Charles's consent. But to contend that, in virtue of this stipulation, Charles's rights in the editorial share were above his employer's rights, is a proposition I cannot accede to, though he was " directeur " besides being editor. This stipulation is, of necessity, impliedly accompanied by and subject to the understanding that the owner's responsibility and interests should be respected in the columns of the paper and the owner was the sole judge of the manner in which that was to be done. The respondent would contend, forsooth, that he was even at liberty to direct his writings against his employer.
That is what his contentions virtually amount to. The paper had always, or for a long time, been known as an organ or supporter of the Liberal party.
On the eve of the election I referred to, Charles as editor wrote an article, unknown to Arthur, in which he abused the Liberal party in unmistakeable terms, concluding by saying that in
Sherbrooke the Liberals were "rari nantes in gurgite vasto," which is cruelly translated in Sherbrooke
French by: "Its sont comme les pois dans une soupe claire." Such conduct on the part of Charles deserved dismissal, and he cannot complain if he got it. When an editor finds that his opinions are not in accord with those of the proprietor he must either submit or quit.
And if he takes advantage of the confidence that is reposed in him to abuse his proprietor's political friends, and in the midst of a political battle turns traitor to the party he is paid to support, his conduct cannot be too severely censured.
In the present case Arthur, the owner, would have had a perfect right to change the political colour of his paper, and Charles the editor would have had to follow him, and obey his orders, or abandon the editorial chair.
But the interversion of these relative rights and duties, that Charles contends for, cannot be sanctioned.
He certainly, also, had a perfect right to change his political views, but he had not the right to change the political colour of Arthur's newspaper, without Arthur's consent.
I would allow the appeal and dismiss the action, with costs in the three courts against respondent. Appeal allowed with costs.