Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n v. Bresler

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal involves a judgment, entered upon the verdict of a jury by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Mathias, J.) for $17,500 damages ($5,000 compensatory and $12,500 punitive) in favor of Charles S. Bresler, appellee and plaintiff below, for libel, against the appellants and defendants below, Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association, Inc. (Publishing Association) publisher of the Greenbelt News Review (News Review), and its president, Alfred M. Skolnik. Inasmuch as the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Bresler, we must review the facts in the light most favorable to him, where those facts are in dispute or where more than one inference may be drawn from them. Campfield v. Crowther, 252 Md. 88 , 249 A. 2d 168 (1969); Cassell v. Pfaifer, 243 Md. 447, 453 , 221 A. 2d 668, 671 (1966).

Accordingly, we note that there was sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could have found the following facts: The News Review is the only newspaper published in the City of Greenbelt. Its circulation consists of approximately 4,500 copies each week, of which only about 75 are paid subscriptions which are mailed; the remaining copies are delivered without charge to every house in Greenbelt. Mr. Skolnik is not only president of the Publishing Association, but also writes many of its feature articles and editorials. He is also one of the five members of the editorial board which reviews and edits all of the material published.

His wife, Elaine Skolnik, writes many of the feature articles as well as a weekly column and is one of several housewives who serve ³²⁹ as reporters. The Skolniks are well-educated persons, Mr. Skolnik holding three degrees, B.A., M.A. and Ph.D., and Mrs. Skolnik having attended college for three and one-half years. The News Review published a number of articles and editorials concerning Mr. Bresler which are alleged to be false, malicious and libelous. The two principal articles which used the word “blackmail” with reference to Mr. Bresler related to the proposed zoning of two tracts of land (Parcels 1 and 2) in which he owned a 16p3 per cent interest.

Bresler and his associates had requested, and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) Master Plan had recommended R-30 (Townhouse) zoning for both tracts, but this zoning was vigorously opposed by Greenbelt Homes, Inc., the large mutual housing cooperative in Greenbelt, (GHI) and a group known as “Citizens for A Planned Greenbelt” (CFPG). CFPG had approximately 650 Greenbelt residents as members, and had no requirement for membership other than the payment of $1.00. Mrs. Skolnik is one of the twenty members of the Steering Committee of CFPG, which operates as its executive body. Both Mr. Skolnik and his wife, Elaine, attended meetings of the Steering Committee.

The Skolniks are also members of GHI by reason of having purchased the perpetual use of one of the original Greenbelt row houses. GHI at one time owned all of the land now owned by Bresler and his associates, but sold it at a profit instead of developing it. GHI owns the wooden row houses which sell for between $5,000 and $10,000 and which are located in front of Parcels 1 and 2. It opposed the R-30 zoning for Parcels 1 and 2, even though it was building townhouses on its own property.

It advertises regularly in the News Review. Charles Schwan is president of GHI and is a friend of the Skolniks. He serves with Mrs. Skolnik on the CFPG Steering Committee and is chairman of the CFPG Membership Committee. The evidence at the trial, which began on January 3, 1968, indicated that in 1961 and 1962 the relations between Bresler and the City Council of Greenbelt were cordial.

A rather glowing article appeared in The Washington Post of October 6, 1962, by John B. Willmann, its Real Estate Editor, under the headline “Vast Private Developments Planned In 25-Year-Old Green ³³⁰ belt Community”, in which the proposed activities of Mr. Bresler as a developer are set out in some detail. It was indicated that he had acquired 450 acres of land in Greenbelt for nearly $2,000,000, and with a partner was beginning the first group of 61 homes. The total planning and zoning, however, which had been worked out with the Greenbelt officials, called for some 800 single-family dwellings and 350 townhouses in the areas north and south of Greenbelt. “Two years ago,” the article stated, Mr. Bresler had “built and then sold, the 87-unit Greenbelt Apartments—a three-quarter-million-dollar project.” The article stated: “There are now nearly 2000 row house and apartment living units in Greenbelt and more than a hundred residents are ‘plank owners’ in the community that was called Tugwelltown when it was conceived as a New Deal experiment. More than 8000 persons live in Greenbelt today and nearly that many more would be added over the next several years by the developments planned by Bresler. “Meanwhile, Greenbelt will also grow with the development of Springhill Lake, a Community Builders’ project on a 390-acre tract in the northwest section of the town.

Ground was broken this summer for a planned community that eventually will be a $50-mil-lion development of town houses and high-and-low rise apartments totaling some 5000 living units.” In 1964, however, the relations apparently had become somewhat strained inasmuch as in the News Review of May 7, 1964, in an article written by Mr. Skolnik reporting what had happened at the meeting of the City Council of Greenbelt on May 5, it was stated that Councilman Simonson “also observed that much debris had been left along the shoreline, including a spreading patch of tar-oil, as the result of the construction of Lakeside Extended by the developer Charles Bresler.” Further discussion was then reported and the article continued: “It took the better part of two hours before the council and the audience decided that it made much more sense to stop attacking each other and concen ³³¹ trate on a common target—Bresler—who wasn’t there. The council rapidly agreed, with the full approval of a tired audience, to get off a letter to Bresler notifying him that unless all material and debris now encroaching upon city land is removed within a specified time, the city will remove the debris at the developer’s expense. Councilman Dave Champion dissented on the grounds that the city has already received assurances from Bresler that this would be done. The council and audience remained skeptical.” On June 2, 1964, Mr. and Mrs. Bresler and the Suburban Trust Company, mortgagee, executed and recorded among the land records of Prince George’s County, a release of covenants previously entered into with the City of Greenbelt in 1962.

These covenants allegedly placed on the 50 acre Charlestowne Village Terrace a limitation of the density to 7 units an acre. By April 22, 1965, as reported in the News Review of that date, an active campaign was in progress for membership in CFPG, the principal goal of which was “ ‘to preserve the fundamental character of Greenbelt as a low-density, planned residential community.’ ” In an article by Mr. Skolnik in the same issue bearing the headline “CITY BATTLES BRESLER ON 2 FRONTS; SETS SPRING CLEAN-UP FOR MAY 3-17”, it was stated that: “Another confrontation is looming between the city council and the local developer, Charles Bresler and associates.” The article recites that a subdivision plat for section 2 of Charlestowne Village was filed with MNCPPC calling for 260 units “in excess of the number agreed upon in the covenant entered into between the city and Bresler at the time the land was rezoned.” The article further stated the MNCPPC had approved the subdivision plat as it only looked to the zoning of the land and “does not take into consideration private agreements between municipalities and developers.” It was further stated that the “city and Bresler will also be at odds this week when the suit filed by the city against Ivy Homes, Inc. and Boxwood Village, Inc. comes before the circuit court,” involving an alleged excess of rain water resulting from the rough ³³² grading of the land. The article continued: “Further disillusionment of the community with the developer was seen at the council meeting when new residents of Lakeside Extended complained that the developer was not removing unsightly debris accumulated from building operations.” We now come to the two articles in the News Review which form the principal basis for the libel action. In the News Review of October 14, 1965, the first article containing the following relevant portions appeared: “SCHOOL SITE STIRS UP COUNCIL REZONING DEAL OFFER DEBATED by Dorothy Sucher “Delay in construction of a new Greenbelt high school is the lever by which a local developer is pressuring the city to endorse his bid for higher density rezoning of two large tracts of land; so citizens heard at a well-attended special meeting of the City Council on Monday night, Oct. 11. “For the past nine months, the Board of Education has been trying to acquire land owned by Consolidated Syndicates, Inc. (Charles Bresler—Theodore Lerner), for a high school site. * * * * * * “Some time ago, it became known that the developer would agree on the price, provided the city would help him obtain higher density rezoning for two of his tracts (Parcels 1 and 2, totaling 230 acres) near the center of Greenbelt.

If the city refused, he threatened to delay the school site acquisition as long as possible through the courts. * * * “Blackmail “ ‘It seems that this is a slight case of blackmail,’ commented Mrs. Marjorie Bergemann on Monday night, and the word was echoed by many speakers from the audience. “Councilman David Champion, however, denied that it was ‘blackmail,’ explaining that he would rather ‘re ³³³ fer to it (i.e., the negotiations-Ed.) as a two-way-street.’ “Speaking from the floor, Gerald Gough, commented : ‘Everyone knows there’s a need for a school —just walk through the halls of High Point. The developer knows there’s a need and says, ‘we’ll meet your need if you meet our need.’ In my opinion, it’s highly unethical. “Delay Probable “Mayor Edgar Smith remarked that it should be made clear that refusing the developer’s terms did not necessarily mean the loss of the school site; that it would, however, probably mean a two or three year delay in the construction oí the school. “Among the parents who spoke was Mrs. Joseph Rosetti, who said: T have several children going into high school, but I would rather adhere to the Greenbelt Master Plan than overcrowd the town with dense development. I would stand for my children’s discomfort, rather than give in to a blackmailing scheme.’ 5jC 2]C * “Councilman William Hoff asked whether the City Council itself knew all the facts about the transactions with the Board of Education and said: ‘We weren’t ever informed about the money transactions between the developer and the school board.’ ” In the same issue of October 14, a letter to the editor from Miriam and Ploward Laster was published. This letter to the editor was entitled, “An Unethical Trade” and stated, in relevant part, the following: “We have been following with great concern the county’s attempt to build a high school in Greenbelt.

As parents of a junior high school daughter, as well as three other children who eventually will attend secondary school, we are eager to see an excellent high school construction quickly in our city. However, we ³³⁴ resent the way in which our needs are being exploited cynically by the land developer who owns the property on which the school is scheduled to be built. * * * “We do not envy the council its difficult choice. However, we believe strongly that it is a choice the council never should have been asked to malee. The two issues should not be confused, and the Board of Education should have rejected the developer’s attempt to tie them together.

Since it did not, we request that the council reject this unethical trade. ;|í >|í jjt “While we never should have been forced to make such a choice, we believe that ethical and practical considerations both argue against agreeing to the developer’s demands. We hope that other Greenbelt residents will join in indicating this at the next city council meeting Monday.” The second article appeared in the News Review of October 21, 1965, and contained, in relevant part, the following: “COUNCIL REJECTS BY 4-1 HIGH SCHOOL SITE DEAL by Mary Lou Williamson “More than 150 citizens came to hear how the new City Council would respond to pressure by a local developer for higher density zoning on a large tract of land in exchange for uncontested consummation of the sale of a Greenbelt senior high school site to the Board of Education at the Council meeting Monday night. “Council sat quietly listening for more than an hour to citizen statements before voting to reject the proposal (4-1) with Councilman Dave Champion dissenting. * * * * * * “A procession of citizens took the floor to make impassioned speeches—some from prepared texts, some extemporaneously. The mayor occasionally had to caution them to refrain from engaging in personalities. ³³⁵ “Albert Herling suggested skulduggery in the September court postponement. Although he praised most of the City Manager’s report, he criticized the section entitled ‘Risks and Conclusions,’ saying they appeared negative in the extreme.

He suggested a list of positive steps that council ought to take: 1) fight Bresler’s ‘blackmail’; 2) make clear to the Board of Education —no deals; 3) make clear to the District Council (zoning authority) unanimous opposition to the requested R-30 zoning; and 4) seek the swiftest possible court settlement. * * * * * * “Pilski asked if anyone in the audience cared to speak in support of Bresler’s proposal. “Only James Martin took the floor. He suggested that Bresler’s action was not ‘blackmail’ but the legitimate advance of his rights to develop his land, Martin suggested, by way of example, that GHI’s long-range planning committee had been doing much the same thing some months ago. He alleged that the density of the ‘frame homes (GHI) is far more atrocious than anything Bresler’s considering.” Also in the October 21 issue, an editorial appeared entitled, “THE LIMITS OF COMPROMISE” in which it was stated: “But some of the developers are not satisfied with half a loaf; they want the whole loaf, and in a few instances, do not seem to care what methods are used to achieve their goal.” In the January 20, 1966 issue of the News Review, a letter to the editor from Clifford Simonson, entitled, “ANOTHER CRIPPLING BLOW” was published. It stated in relevant part: “On January 11 the county board of education and the developer Charles Bresler struck another crippling blow at Greenbelt’s Master Plan.

Bresler, in flagrant disregard of that plan and the wishes of nearly all Greenbelt citizens, moved to compound even fur ³³⁶ ther the serious problems which a senior high school in his land-locked property on parcel 2 would create.” After stating why the new school location was undesirable, Mr. Simonson continued: “Chairman W. Carroll Beatty of the school board never did answer Elaine Skolnik’s question as to whether the board had fully calculated all costs associated with developing the respective school sites. Board member Thomas Hicks never did answer questions as to how tire elimination of a perimeter road would affect the core of Greenbelt. The evasive answers can only lead one to the conclusion that such vital aspects were never really considered. “Must we cannibalize original Greenbelt to spawn unwieldy, unplanned, and unwanted development, solely for the convenience and profit of the developer?” In the issue of April 7, 1966, the News Review published an article by Mrs. Skolnik under the headline: “BRESLER REPUDIATES COVENANT SIGNED WITH CITY IN 1962”, in which it was indicated that news of the Release of Covenants filed for record on June 2, 1964 “came as a complete surprise to city officials since Bresler had not at any time during the past 22 months notified the city that he had unilaterally abolished the covenant agreement.” and that “The city is now looking into the legality of the ‘Release of Covenants’ filed by Bresler since it was not a party to the document.” A letter to the editor from Mrs. E. S. Ross was published in the News Review of May 19,1966, which was as follows : “I wonder if the rest of Greenbelt’s residents were as startled as I was to read in Sunday’s Washington papers of Spiro T. Agnew’s invitation to Charles Bresler to run as the Republicans candidate for State Comptroller ? “The article in the Star made mention of Mr. Bresler’s recent land dealings for the State. I wonder how much is known of his land dealings against this city ?” The News Review, in its issue of June 9, 1966, under the ³³⁷ headline, “CHARLES BRESLER TO RUN FOR STATE COMPTROLLER” published an article indicating that Mr. Bresler expected to announce his candidacy for Maryland State Comptroller on the Republican Ticket on Saturday, June 11.

The article then stated in relevant part: “Bresler, a real estate developer and builder, owns most of the remaining vacant land in Greenbelt. He developed the Plaza Apartments, Lakecrest Homes and Charlestowne Village, and was the original developer of Boxwood Village. “Bresler is currently faced with a series of legal actions instituted by the City of Greenbelt. * * * * * * “Reportedly, a number of homeowners, both in the Lakecrest and Boxwood developments, have started legal proceedings against Bresler for failure to make construction corrections in accordance with county standards.” It should be observed that until the letter to the editor in the News Review issue of May 19, 1966, and in the issue of June 9, 1966, there had been no mention of any kind in any News Review issue offered in evidence which referred to Mr. Bresler as holding or seeking any public office of any kind or of his fitness or lack of fitness for such an office, although Mr. Bresler was a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from Montgomery County (and not from Prince George’s County where the City of Greenbelt is located), and there was no reference to any act of Assembly or other political activity by Mr. Bresler which might possibly affect the City of Greenbelt, its inhabitants or Prince George’s County generally. All of the references were to Mr. Bresler as a land owner and developer. Finally, on June 30, 1966, the News Review published an article under the headline “GHI FILES SUIT AGAINST SCHOOL BOARD; BRESLER INFLUENCE CITED” which stated in relevant part: “The bill of complaint for injunction, filed by GHI’s special attorney, David Reich, stated that in reversing ³³⁸ its decision to buy parcel 15 (the city-preferred Beltway-Lake site), the school board was influenced by considerations other than the public interest and by the pressures and influence which the developers (Charles Bresler, Theodore Lerner, and associates) were able to assert by reason of their ownership of both sites (parcels 2 and 15). * * * “The chairman of the county school board is W. Carroll Beatty, who is a director of the Suburban Trust Company which has held the mortgages on much of Bresler’s properties in Greenbelt.

The county school board attorney is Paul Nussbaum, who is on the Suburban Trust Company’s Advisory Committee.” The present action for damages for libel was filed on July 18, 1966, and an amended declaration was filed on November 7, 1966. The plaintiff, Mr. Bresler, claimed in the ad damnum clause, $1,000,000 compensatory damages and $1,000,000 exemplary or punitive damages. He alleged that in the publications mentioned in the amended declaration, the defendants, Publishing Association and Mr. Skolnik—• “[FJalsely and with express malice printed [the charges of blackmail] * * * for the purpose of imputing to the Plaintiff the commission of the crime of blackmail; and for the purpose of exposing the Plaintiff to public scorn, hatred, contempt, disgrace and ridicule; and for the purpose of injuring the Plaintiff in his aforesaid business and occupation; and to degrade Plaintiff in the esteem or opinion of the residents of the City of Greenbelt and the State of Maryland and elsewhere; and to infer and imply that Plaintiff is untrustworthy; and to injure Plaintiff in his credit and financial transactions; and to infer and impute to Plaintiff corrupt or dishonest motives in his dealings with City, County and State officials and others; and to impute to Plaintiff moral turpitude, immoral conduct, dishonesty, fraud and falsehood. “The aforesaid publications were intended to and ³³⁹ did injure the Plaintiff as follows: They did injure the Plaintiff in his business and occupation, and did injure Plaintiff in his business reputation and practice, and did injure Plaintiff in his financial credit and transactions, and did expose the Plaintiff to public scorn, hatred, contempt, disgrace and ridicule, and did degrade Plaintiff in the esteem or opinion of the residents of the City of Greenbelt and the State of Maryland and elsewhere. “Said publications were made recklessly and without reasonable justification or excuse, and were printed and published in said newspaper by and with the knowledge and consent of each of said Defendants and said Defendant, Alfred M. Skolnik, personally directed, supervised, assisted, and actively participated in, and cooperated in, the preparation, writing, editing, printing and publication of, the publications aforesaid.” The plaintiff did not elect a jury trial. The defendants, in addition to the general issue plea that they did not commit the wrongs alleged, filed six other “defenses” challenging the sufficiency of the declaration to state a cause of action, and alleging that the publications were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and under Article 43 [40'] of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution; that the words were fair comment and were published without actual malice, and are privileged; and, that the words were published in good faith, without malice and with reasonable and probable cause.

There was, however, no plea in justification of the truth of the alleged libelous words. The defendants elected a jury trial. At the trial of the case, which began on January 3, 1968, before Judge Mathias and a jury, the plaintiff called the defendant, Mr. Skolnik, as an adverse witness. After testifying to many of the facts already given concerning the operations of News Review, his education and position and duties with the News Review, as well as his and Mrs. Skolnik’s connections with CFPG and GUI, Mr. Skolnik was interrogated in regard to the article in the News Review issue of October 14, 1965, in ³⁴⁰ which the word ‘blackmail” was used.

He testified that he knew “blackmail is somewhat in the category of a crime.” He said that he did not know who had inserted the bold-face subheading “BLACKMAIL” and stated that “It probably struck them, put in the word “blackmail”, and further that “All we were doing was reporting what was said there and also what someone else said that it wasn’t blackmail.” When asked about Mrs. Marjorie Bergemann, who was quoted in the article of October 14 as using the phrase “a slight case of blackmail,” Mr. Skolnik testified that Mrs. Bergemann was elected a member of the Steering Committee of CFPG six months after the article was published and that she was a friend of his. 1 Mr. Skolnik also identified Gerald Gough who was quoted in the article as using the phrase “highly unethical” as a member of GHI and CFPG. Mrs. Joseph Rosetti, who was quoted in the article as using the phrase “blackmailing scheme”, was identified by Mr. Skolnik as a member of CFPG and also as a current member of its Steering Committee as well as a friend of his. 2 Albert Herling, mentioned in the article in the News Review issue of October 21, 1965, as having “suggested” that the city council “fight Bresler’s blackmail” was identified by Mr. Skolnik as both a member of GHI and of the Steering Committee of CFPG at the time the article was published. Albert Herling was mentioned in the October 21 article as having used the word “skulduggery”. Mr. Skolnik testified that this “is the word that the reporter used to interpret what Mr. Herling was saying” and that the word skulduggery “means something amiss, something improper perhaps.” Mr. Skolnik admitted in his testimony that he had written parts of the editorial in the News Review issue of October 21 in which it was stated that some developers “do not seem to ³⁴¹ care wliat methods are used to achieve their goal” and that he was referring to Mr. Bresler and his associates.

Mr. Skolnik was referred to the News Review issue of June 9, 1966, which attributed to The Evening Star a report that Mr. Bresler intended to announce his candidacy for Maryland State Comptroller, and which related at length legal proceedings in which Mr. Bresler was involved, including a suit by the city in regard to drainage problems in Boxwood Village. Mr. Skolnik admitted that this suit was against two corporations, one of which Bresler had no interest in, and not against Bresler personally, and that the News Review failed to report that the case was dismissed as to Boxwood Village and later settled with the other corporation in which Bresler had no interest. The article further stated: “Reportedly a number of homeowners, both in the Lakecrest and Boxwood developments, have started legal proceedings against Bresler for failure to make construction corrections in accordance with county standards.” Mr. Skolnik stated that this article had been written jointly by him and his wife, but that Mrs. Skolnik had written the above paragraph. Pie further stated that his wife had attended a CFPG meeting at which approximately 15 to 20 homeowners from Boxwood Village desired to air their complaints, but the chairman of the meeting said that they would not discuss the complaints, so that Mrs. Skolnik talked to them after the meeting adjourned.

When asked what suits had been filed, Mr. Skolnik testified: “No, I don’t know anything about suits. All I know is that people were complaining about the fact that they were having troubles.” He stated that he thought “[L]egal proceedings include complaints.” Mr. Skolnik was questioned about an article in the June 16, 1966 issue of the News Review entitled, “CFPG DRIVE LAUNCHED” in which the “collection of funds earmarked specifically for legal fees” by the Steering Committee of CFPG was publicized. In the article it was stated that “Citizens suits are now being prepared in connection with an eight-story high rise apartment on Charlestowne-Village acreage and other ac ³⁴² tions of developers which are contrary to the Greenbelt Master Plan.” When interrogated in regard to whether or not Mrs. Skolnik assisted in any way in the collection of those legal funds, Mr. Skolnik answered, “I don’t recall any activity in that respect”, and affirmatively stated, “I don’t think she had anything or much to do with the drive for legal fees”, but when shown the last paragraph of an article in the News Review which solicited assistance and listed three telephone numbers to call, he stated that the last number was his wife’s telephone number and that he and Mrs. Skolnik did not have separate telephones. Mr. Skolnik stated that this suit arose out of a suggestion by Mayor Smith that the City’s suit for an injunction against the violation of the covenants be supplemented by private suits, in the event that it was determined that the City had no standing to maintain its suit.

Mayor Smith was a member of the Steering Committee of CFPG at that time, and was chairman of its Official Liaison Committee. Mr. Skolnik also testified that the contemplated suit was to be a suit in equity for an injunction and for no other purpose. When asked about an article in the July 7, 1966 issue of the News Review, entitled “CFPG DRIVE UNDERWAY”, which stated that the legal funds were “to support legal action to maintain the garden-city character of Greenbelt and to help realize the City’s Master Plan”, Mr. Skolnik stated that one of the two telephone numbers given for those willing to assist to call, was the telephone number of Mrs. Skolnik. In neither the News Review article in the June 16, 1966 issue, nor in the article in the issue of July 7, 1966 was there any mention of the fact that the suits were against any one except Mr. Bresler or for any purpose other than the stated purpose, i.e., to supplement the injunction suit of the City.

Mr. Skolnik on further examination, however, admitted that the suit which was instituted was one at law in which each plaintiff, including Mrs. Rosetti, claimed $175,000 compensatory and punitive damages, together with an injunction pursuant to Maryland Rule BF 40 a. 3 ³⁴³ Air. Skolnik further testified that he did not know of any support by CFPG of suits against any developers other than Bresler who were developing in Greenbelt contrary to the City’s Alaster Plan. He stated that GHI, which had opposed MNC-PPC’s recommendations for R-30 (townhousc) zoning on Parcels 1 and 2, is, itself, building 25 townhouses on its own land. Air.

Skolnik was asked: “Q. Have you ever instructed any of the members of your staff to call Mr. Bresler to verify any article which concerned him? A. No, we have no general— wliat we have is a general rule, that if you don’t know the facts, if there is confusion about the facts, you call the principals involved.” When asked if on any occasion there had been doubts to the facts where he had felt that is was necessary that he or the reporters communicate with Mr. Bresler, Mr. Skolnik was able to recall two instances, one “a few months ago ’ in regard to a report that Bresler was removing the trees on land owned by him directly across from a new project he had built and the other in regard to a newspaper report in the Washington press that a high-rise apartment project was to be built on Parcel 15. Mr. Bresler gave them the correct facts on these two occasions. Air.

Bresler, himself, was the next and final witness for the plaintiff. In response to questions as to whether he owned “the bulk of the undeveloped land in Greenbelt,” he testified that he had an interest varying from 16^ to 25 per cent in several parcels of land in Greenbelt, which totaled 430 acres, whereas, other developers owned approximately 2000 acres. Zoning petitions had been filed for approximately 600 acres of land, he having an interest in such petitions for about 230 or 340 acres. Air.

Bresler further testified that no suit had been filed against him for any alleged failure to make construction corrections as required by the County holding standards. He also stated that “the only personal suit I have had in Greenbelt is the one the City filed against me at the instigation ³⁴⁴ of the News Review and G.H.I.” He denied he was a blackmailer or that he had attempted to blackmail the City Council or the Board of Education or any one in connection with any of his projects or developments. Mr. Bresler further testified that he had tried but could not obtain a subscription to the .News Review. He tried to buy the paper but could not find any place to purchase the News Review.

His office had telephoned for a mail subscription and “was told they didn’t mail them out.” He was surprised to hear Mr. Skolnik’s testimony that the News Review has “50 to 75 people who receive mail subscriptions.” When derogatory articles appear in the News Review, however, some person who receives the paper will mail one “to the Breslers. My wife opens it and one of my six kids will get up then and want to know what it is all about * * *. And the local residents call referring to the Bresler news because invariably two or three articles are on the front page mentioning me by name and allude to my name —• as one of them said, if it wasn’t for me there wouldn’t be any paper.” On cross-examination, Mr. Bresler testified that he had signed the covenants in regard to building townhouses averaging 7 units an acre for 50 acres because “this was what they were going to do with everybody, that they were going to get the same covenants from everybody.” 4 He said that he had in fact erected 144 townhouses, but the City had approved 12 units an acre for another developer, Lakeside North, a few months after the covenants “to assure no density larger than seven units per acre” had been required from him. He also stated that the developer of Lakeside North had agreed to build “townhouses, not garden apartments in that development,” but did not “keep his word either” but the City took no action against that developer.

At the end of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants made a ³⁴⁵ motion for a directed verdict which was denied by the trial judge. The defendants then put on their case. The first witness for the defendants was the mayor of Greenbelt, Edgar L. Smith. He testified that he was in his third term as mayor, having been prior to his election as mayor, a member of the City Council of Greenbelt (from 1959-61).

He had been city attorney for the municipality for about six months. He stated that he had been present at the meetings of the City Council on October 11 and October 18, 1965, and that the articles in the issues of October 14 and October 21 represented “fair and accurate” reports of the respective meetings. On cross-examination, Mayor Smith stated that the date on which the City of Greenbelt first learned that Bresler intended to build a high-rise apartment was January 17, 1966, but the City Manager’s Report for the week ending October 22, 1965, (a copy of which Mayor Smith assumed he received, as he normally does) indicated that Bresler was to construct a “High Rise 183 units”, that the units “To be constructed” were in excess of the covenants and that “Mr. Brooks [city attorney] has been requested to prepare to take action to enforce the covenants.” He testified that he did not think that either he or the City Council ever voted against any of CFPG’s recommendations, and that he did not take issue with an article in the News Review which said that he went to meetings of the County Commissioners as a delegate from CFPG, and stated that he “didn’t tell them I was Mayor, because T was there in a dual capacity. As Mayor, as delegate from CFPG.” He also testified in regard to several committees set up by the Steering Committee of CFPG and that he was Chairman of the Official Liaison Committee as well as a member of the Steering Committee.

Charles Schwan was Chairman of the Membership Committee and Albert Herling 5 was Chairman of the Public Relations Committee. Mayor Smith further testified that he was present and heard the entire discussions and that there was nothing that was discussed at either the meeting of the City Council of ³⁴⁶ October 11 or October 18 which would “justify the use of the word ‘blackmail.’ ” He further stated : “If there was any evidence that there was blackmail, any definite evidence of anything like this, the Council would have taken some action. “Q. You, as Mayor, would have told your Police Department to do something, wouldn’t you ? “A. Yes, we would have gone further than that, the State’s Attorney’s office probably.” Mary Louise Miller Williamson testified for the defendants that she had written the article in the issue of the News Review of October 21, 1965, which referred to Mr. Herling’s alleged allegation of “blackmail” and “skulduggery.” On cross-examination, she stated, “I paraphrased his sentence but I selected out the word ‘blackmail’ was his word and I wanted to denote it was his word I was picking up * * As to the word “skulduggery” attributed to Mr. Herling, she stated: “I did not use that word. This is a good example of what happens on Tuesday night when the other members of the Editorial Board will read through an article. Apparently it was an effort to shorten.

This was quite a long article and this is somebody else’s phrase. That I do recall.” She further stated that the $5 contribution she made to the legal fund of CFPG was to be used to “preserve the Master Plan of Greenbelt.” She was not told, however, that this fund would be used to sue Mr. Bresler for damages in excess of a million dollars. She assumed that Mrs. Skolnik was soliciting for these funds, inasmuch as she was on the Steering Committee. When asked whether there was “anything in the discussion * * * which justified the use of the word ‘blackmail’ ”, Mrs. Williamson replied: “There is no connection as far as I can see between what Mr. Bresler, what the situation—the offer, there is no relation between that and a crime of blackmail.

There is a difference.” Dorothy Sucher testified on behalf of the defendants that she had written the article in the issue of the News Review of Oc ³⁴⁷ tober 14, 1965, which first used the word “blackmail”. She edited the second article in the issue of October 21, 1965, written by Mrs. Williamson and stated that the use of the word “skulduggery" was her idea. She is a member of CFPG and believed that she had contributed $1 to its legal fund drive. She stated that her article was not intended to be a complete quotation of everything that was said at the meeting and that she had not used all of her notes in writing the story.

She testified that she “knew blackmail was a crime.” She recalled that Mrs. Skolnik participated in the discussion at the meeting but could not remember if Mrs. Skolnik had used the word “blackmail”, but she could not say she had not used it. She knew that she did not quote her. She had quoted Mrs. Bergemann, however, who used the word “blackmail” and Mrs. Bergemann had requested that she contribute to the legal fund of CFPG. She did not know that this legal fund was to be used to try to collect damages from Mr. Bresler.

She testified that she thought that she had inserted the subheading “blackmail” in her article, which was “edited by a number of people, but I don’t remember any discussion." The last witness for the defendants was Elaine Skolnik, who testified that she had attended the meeting at which Mrs. Bergemann had used the word “blackmail”. She stated that Mrs. Bergemann was a friend of hers as was Charles Schwan. She further stated that she had three and one-half years of college education. She testified that to her, the words “started legal proceedings” meant “they went to a lawyer.” She stated that she had not urged any litigation against Mr. Bresler; she is a member of the Steering Committee of CFPG and voted “to endorse the citizens, which was a suit to enjoin the building of the high rise apartment and to enforce the covenants.” She stated that she did not solicit for the legal fund of CFPG and that her telephone number was “probably in the papers to—as far as volunteers * * * to go out and solicit.” The legal funds were to be used to “* * * see that Greenbelt was developed according to the Greenbelt Master Plan.” In regard to “blackmail” she testified: “It could be a crime, especially it is a crime when you think someone has exerted the money or tried— ³⁴⁸ where you are being paid off or where you can land in jail. “Q. Right.

Well was Mr. Bresler involved in the crime of blackmail as a result of what he was proposing to the City Council or Board of Education? A. Not the crime of blackmail. “Q. I am asking you if you think the word ‘blackmail’ was a proper description to be applied to what Mr. Bresler was asking the City Council or the Board of Education to' do? A. In the context of the meeting, yes, it was proper.” The defendants again moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the testimony and the trial court overruled this motion. The trial court pointed out that there was no plea of justification that the allegations of blackmail were true.

Counsel for the defendants stated: “What I am saying is we don’t contend that the plaintiff committed blackmail, that is all. We don’t intend [contend] the plaintiff committed the crime of blackmail.” The trial judge gave a comprehensive charge to the jury to which the defendants filed two exceptions. The charge and exceptions will be particularly mentioned when we consider the alleged errors in the charge. In his opening statement to the jury, counsel for Mr. Bresler stated, in part, the following: “Now' we have not been able to determine why Mr. Bresler was singled out.

I say this for this reason. It is true he is a public figu-re and I suppose everybody needs a zvhipping boy, but the evidence will show, one, that Mr. Bresler is only a minority owner in this land. Unfortunately, he is not wealthy enough to have purchased this land himself and built and developed it himself, so his interest approximates fifteen per cent or sixteen and two-thirds per cent, or in one case, I believe, it ran as high as twenty-five per cent, but as a minority ozstmer.” (Emphasis supplied) ³⁴⁹ As we have indicated, the jury returned a verdict of $17,500 damages ($5,000 compensatory and $12,500 punitive) in favor of Mr. Bresler and against the Publishing Association and Mr. Skolnik. The appellants make four contentions before us: 1.

The publications are constitutionally protected because (a) they relate to Bresler’s qualifications as a public official, and (b) to his activities of public interest as a public figure. 2. The two reports of the meetings of the City Council at which the term “blackmail” was used are particularly entitled to constitutional protection because they are fair and accurate reports of what was said during official public meetings. 3. There was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to establish that the defendants and appellants published a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff and appellee Bresler with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. 4. The trial court erred in its instructions in four particulars.

Before considering specifically the four contentions of the appellants, several general observations should be made. First of all, it seems apparent that but for the federal constitutional protections which the appellants allege are applicable and on which they principally rely, the facts alleged and proved in the present case would, under the Maryland law relating to libel, present a case of libel for which damages, both compensatory and punitive, could be awarded by a jury to Mr. Bresler against the defendants and appellants. It is well settled in Maryland that words which falsely charge a person with, or impute to him, the commission of a crime for which he is liable to be prosecuted and punished are actionable per se. As Judge Horney, for the Court, aptly stated in American Stores Co. v. Byrd, 229 Md. 5,12-13 , 181 A. 2d 333, 337-38 (1962): “The historical distinction between slander per se and slander per quod is undoubtedly based on the theory that in words actionable per se, their injurious character is a fact of common notoriety, and necessarily import damages not requiring proof of special dam ³⁵⁰ ages (cf. Foley v. Hoffman, 188 Md. 273 ); while, if the words used are not defamatory per se, they must be explained by innuendo and colloquium (cf. Walker v. D’Alesandro, 212 Md. 163 ).

See Odgers on Libel and Slander (Am. Ed. by Bigelow), p. * * * 309. “Consistently this Court has held that words which falsely charge a person with or impute to him the commission of a crime for which he is liable to be prosecuted and punished are actionable per se. See, for example, the early case of Dorsey v. Whipps, 8 Gill 457, 462, 1849 ), where, in quoting 1 Starkie on Slander, p. 43, it was said: ‘ “To impute any crime or misdemeanor, for which corporal punishment is to be inflicted, is actionable without proof of special damage.” ’ And see Haines v. Campbell, 74 Md. 158 , 21 Atl. 702 (1891), where it was stated that if spoken words convey an implication of crime, they are actionable in whatever mode their meaning may be expressed, that is, whether by way of interrogation, insinuation, ironic praise or any other form of speech understood by the hearers. See also Wheatley v. Wallis, 3 H. & J. 1 (1810); Bonner v. Boyd, 3 H. & J. 278 (1811); Long v. Eakle, 4 Md. 454 (1853); Shockey v. McCauley, 101 Md. 461 , 61 Atl. 583 (1905).

Other cases in this area are collected in 14 M.L.E., Libel and Slander, § 14 (Commission of Crime). “It may well be that the words—‘did you get (or pick up) the $117 that was on the counter’—do not in and of themselves carry an imputation of having stolen the money. But there is no requirement that the defamatory words must embody an outright accusation of the commission of a crime, for ‘(i)n cases of slander, words take their actionable character from the sense in which they appear to have been used, and that in which they are most likely to be understood by those who hear them.’ Garrett v. Dickerson, 19 Md. 418, 447 (1863). And if the slanderous words used are such as in ordinary ‘lay conversation’ will impute, or be understood to impute guilt, that is sufficient to make them ³⁵¹ actionable per se. Blumhardt v. Rohr, 70 Md. 328 , 17 Atl. 266 (1889).

Cf. Pollitt v. Brush-Moore, Etc., Inc., 214 Md. 570, 575 , 136 A. 2d 573 (1957).” American Stores was a far weaker case for the plaintiff on the facts in charging the commission of a crime than are the facts in the present case, but we held that the jury verdict for the plaintiff for $25,000 punitive damages was supported by the evidence. In the instant case the word “blackmail” was used as a subheading without qualification. The charge of blackmail was stated in the News Review issue of October 14, 1965, and was again repeated in the next week in the issue of October 21.

The appellants argue that the word “blackmail” was used in a noncriminal sense, but the intended meaning was for the jury to determine. American Stores v. Byrd, supra. The jury found against the appellants. There is little doubt that a statement that a person is guilty of blackmail charges the commission of a crime for which a person may be prosecuted and punished.

In Maryland extortion or blackmailing is recognized as a crime. See Code (1957) Article 27, Sections 561, 562 and 563, 6 indexed under “CRIMES AND OFFENSES” in Volume 10 as: “Blackmail. Threatening letters, art. 27 §§ 561 to 563. See Threats and Threatening letters.” ³⁵² A similar reference is made in Vol. 10 under the separate heading “BLACKMAIL.” The charging of Mr. Bresler with having committed blackmail could be found by the jury (as it was) to charge him with the commission of a crime.

As the Court of Special Appeals pointed out in Note 3 in its opinion in Iozzi v. State, 5 Md. App. 415 , 247 A. 2d 758 (1968), in considering a prosecution under Article 27, Section 562: “Generally, the term ‘blackmail’ is equivalent to and synonymous with ‘extortion.’ 31 Am. Jur. 2d, 905.” ( 5 Md. App. at 418 , 247 A. 2d at 760 ) See Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Franklin, 74 Nev. 282 , 329 P. 2d 867 (1958) (use of word “blackmail” in headline or tagline of newspaper libelous per se, but reversed on other grounds); Culver v. Marx, 157 Wis. 320 , 147 N. W. 358 (1914) (charge of blackmailing slanderous per se); Hess v. Sparks, 44 Kan. 465 , 24 P. 979 , 21 Am. S.R. 30 (1890) (referring to defendant as a “blackmailer” slanderous per se). See also Mitchell v. Sharon, 51 F. 424 (N.D.Calif. 1892), aff’d 59 F. 980 (9th Cir. 1894) (stating that charging a person with being a “blackmailer” is equivalent to charging such person with being guilty of the crime of “extortion” but holding that words were not slanderous per se because it imputed only an intent to commit blackmail, not the actual crime).

See generally 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander, § 65, page 110 (1948), where it is stated: “Charging a person with being a blackmailer is equivalent to charging him with being guilty of the crime of extortion, and is slanderous per se in jurisdictions where extortion or blackmailing is recognized as a crime.” It is well settled that under the Maryland Constitution and our prior decisions, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in this case. Article 40 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution provides: “That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably ³⁵³ preserved; that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege.” Our predecessors, in Negley v. Farrow, 60 Md. 158 (1883), held that liberty of the press, “is a right belonging to every one whether a proprietor of a newspaper or not, to publish whatever he pleases without the license, interference or control of the government, being responsible alone for the abuse of the privilege.” ( 60 Md. at 176 ) Negiey involved an action against the publishers and owners of “The Herald and Torchlight”, a newspaper published in Hagerstown, by the plaintiff, a republican Senator from Washington County, who claimed that an article in the paper charged him with collaborating with a corrupt democratic ring, with having voted for the ring’s candidate after having participated in the republican caucus in nominating another person, with aiding the ring in defeating a bill for repeal of an Act authorizing the publishing of laws in newspapers, and charging him with thereby proving false to his political obligations and a traitor to his party and bringing dishonor upon the republicans of Washington County who had elected him to the Senate. The article further charged the Senator with having been given a contract to furnish stone to a canal by its president, the head and front for the democratic ring, because he was a Senator “and had a vote to give in the Senate.” The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000. In holding these charges to be libelous per se, Judge Robinson, for the Court, stated : “No one denies the right of the defendants to discuss and criticise boldly and fearlessly the official conduct of the plaintiff.

It is a right which, in every free country belongs to the citizen, and the exercise of it, within lawful and proper limits, affords some protection at least against official abuse and corruption. But there is a broad distinction between fair and legitimate discussion in regard to the conduct of a public man, and the imputation of corrupt motives, by which that conduct may be supposed to be governed. And if one ³⁵⁴ goes out of his way to asperse the personal character of a public man, and to ascribe to him base and corrupt motives, he must do so at his peril; and must either prove the truth of what he says, or answer in damages to the party injured. “The fact that one is the proprietor of a newspaper, entitles him to no privilege in this respect, not possessed by the community in general. The law recognizes no duty, imposed on him, arising from his relations to the public, to defame and libel the character of any one, and if he does, it is no answer to say, he did so in good faith, and without malice, honestly believing it to be true.

Malice in one sense may be said to be an essential element in an action for libel, but not malice in the ordinary sense of hatred or ill will against the person, of whom the defamatory words are spoken. If the publication be in itself libellous, the law in all such cases implies malice; in other words it says, you have no right to libel another, whatever may have been the motive or intention.” ( 60 Md. at 176-77 ) Negley v. Farrow was cited with approval and portions of the opinion of the Court in that case were quoted by us in A.S. Abell Co. v. Kirby, 227 Md. 267, 274-75, 176 A. 2d 340, 343 (1961). In addition to the publications that Mr. Bresler had committed blackmail, there were publications that he had engaged in “An unethical trade”, had been guilty of “skulduggery”, had had legal proceedings “started against him for failure to make construction corrections in accordance with county standards.” These allegations were injurious to Mr. Bresler in his business as a contractor and were libelous per se. As Judge (later Chief Judge) Prescott, for the Court, stated in Thompson v. Upton, 218 Md. 433, 437 , 146 A. 2d 880, 883 (1958): “We have so recently had occasion to pass upon the legal principles involved herein, Pollitt v. Brush-Moore, Etc., Inc., 214 Md. 570 , 136 A. 2d 573 , that it will be unnecessary to unduly elabórate upon them.

It has been repeatedly stated that the scope of libel is ³⁵⁵ wider than that of slander. This Court stated in Bowie v. Evening News, 148 Md. 569, 574 , 129 A. 797 , that it had been said that there is no definition of the term ‘libel’ sufficiently comprehensive to include all cases. We shall not attempt to do what has baffled the Courts for these many years, namely, to compose an all-inclusive definition thereof. However, libel includes any unprivileged (i.e., a publication not having an absolute privilege), false and malicious publication which by printing, writing, signs or pictures tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, Foley v. Hoffman, 188 Md. 273, 284 , 52 A. 2d 476 ; and also embraced therein is any such publication that relates to a person’s office, trade, business or employment, if the publication imputes to him some incapacity or lack of due qualifications to fill the position, or some positive past misconduct which will injuriously affect him in it.

Foley v. Hoffman, supra; Pollitt v. Brush-Moore, Etc., Inc., supra, at p. 577.” This rule has not only been applied to those who practice