## Facts

- Thomas P. Lesesne, Jr., an administrative assistant with the South Carolina State Board of Health, was involved in a fatal automobile incident in Columbia, South Carolina.
- H. G. Willingham filed two telegrams with Western Union containing statements accusing Lesesne of causing the death and implying political influence and official cover-up.
- The first telegram (Oct. 26, 1946) was addressed to Lesesne and delivered to his home; because Lesesne was ill, his wife opened and read it.
- The second telegram (Oct. 27, 1946) was addressed to Dr. James A. Hayne, Director of the State Board of Health, accusing Lesesne of causing the death and suggesting improper protection by officials; it was delivered to Hayne.
- Lesesne sued Western Union for libel on two causes of action based on the two telegrams, even though Willingham authored the messages.
- After an earlier appeal, the case was retried; a jury again returned a verdict for Lesesne on the second telegram (including $2,000), and Western Union appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Western Union’s transmission and routine handling of the telegram text by its employees could constitute “publication” for libel purposes.
2. Whether any publication inherent in such handling and delivery was protected by a qualified privilege as a matter of law, or instead presented a fact question for the jury.
3. Whether delivery of a defamatory telegram about an employee to the employee’s superior constitutes publication supporting carrier liability.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Lesesne on the second cause of action.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find publication of defamatory matter, including through Western Union’s employees and by delivery to Dr. Hayne.
- The court rejected Western Union’s contention that privilege barred liability as a matter of law, concluding the privilege question (including possible abuse) was properly submitted to the jury.
- The court found no basis to disturb the verdict on sufficiency-of-evidence or instructional-error grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A defamation “publication” may occur when a telegram is processed by carrier employees who, in the ordinary course of transmission, read or have access to the message.
- A communications carrier may have only a qualified privilege for internal exposure of message content necessary to transmit the message; it is not absolute.
- Qualified privilege may be lost if dissemination exceeds what is reasonably required for performance of the service or if the privilege is abused (including through improper motive).
- Whether internal handling and delivery fall within the scope of qualified privilege, and whether that privilege was abused under the circumstances, is generally for the jury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a libel judgment against a telegraph carrier for transmitting a defamatory telegram to the plaintiff’s superior, holding that publication could be found based on employee handling and delivery, and that any carrier privilege was qualified and properly left to the jury on the facts presented.


W. Union Tel. Co. v. Lesesne, 198 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1952)