Argabright v. Jones

• Decision Date: 01 April 1899
• Citation: 32 S.E. 995,46 W.Va. 144
• Parties: ARGABRIGHT v. JONES.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

32 S.E. 995

46 W.Va. 144

ARGABRIGHT v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

April 1, 1899

Submitted January 23, 1899

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In an action for libel, the defamatory words must refer to some ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff. If the words used really contain no reflection on any particular individual, no averment or innuendo cannot make them defamatory. An innuendo cannot make the person certain who was uncertain before.

2. As an innuendo is merely explanatory, it is not capable of proof.

3. An innuendo may serve for an explanation to point a meaning where there is precedent matter expressed or necessarily understood or known, but never to establish a new charge.

Error to circuit court, Mercer county; J. M. Sanders, Judge.

Action by A. B. Argabright against H. C. Jones. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Johnston & Hale, for plaintiff in error.

R. C McClaugherty, J. M. Anderson, and G. J. Holbrook, for defendant in error.

ENGLISH J.

A. B Argabright on the 4th of February, 1897, brought an action of trespass on the case, for libel, in the circuit court of Mercer county, against H. C. Jones. The declaration was filed at April rules, containing six counts. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and to each count thereof. The plaintiff joined. The demurrer was overruled as to the first, fourth, and fifth counts, and the plaintiff submitted to the second, third, and sixth counts of his declaration. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined thereon. The defendant then moved for a continuance of the case, which motion was overruled. The cause was then submitted to a jury, which resulted in a verdict against the defendant for $1,000. A motion was made to set the verdict aside, which motion was overruled by the court, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict. Thereupon the defendant obtained this writ of error.

The article published by defendant in the Bluefield Telegraph upon which the plaintiffs claim for damages is predicated, reads as follows: "It has been represented to the shop and railroad men that I had attached the wages of A. B. Argabright, at Graham, and that his wages were held on that account, and, further, that the debt was unjust; and, on these false representations, money has been raised among the shopmen to help Argabright to carry on his lawsuits and support his family. It is all untrue, and a false representation, from beginning to end. The only litigation I have had with A. B. Argabright is that I obtained a judgment before J. M. Anderson, when he was justice of the peace, against Argabright, for about $26, which he had been owing a good while for house rent. At that time there was $10 medical account, on which I did not sue. About three months ago I had a suggestion issued on the judgment, and served on the railway company. He paid that off by schedule; so that has ended our litigation, so far. Neither I nor any one else has ever attached him on my judgment in Virginia. It is a violation of the law to obtain goods under false pretense, and those who have been gulled by misrepresentations would do well to investigate the above case. Respectfully, H. C. Jones."

The first error assigned and relied upon by the defendant is the action of the court in overruling defendant's demurrer to the first, fourth, and fifth counts of the declaration. Was this assignment well taken? It seems to me that the vice found in each one of these counts consists in the fact that the pleader misconstrued and misinterpreted the language used in the article upon which the suit is predicated. In the first place, the publication lacks certainty as to the person alleged to have been defamed. It begins, "It has been represented to the shop and railroad men"; suggesting, by way of innuendo "meaning the plaintiff had represented." But is this innuendo warranted by any portion of the article? It does not say who, or how many, had made the representations which follow. On this point we find the law thus stated in 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 391: "The defamatory words must refer to some ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff. If the words used really contain no reflection on any particular...