Sheley v. Southeastern Newspapers

• Decision Date: 08 November 1952
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 34286,34286,1
• Parties: SHELEY v. SOUTHEASTERN NEWSPAPERS, Inc. et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 211

73 S.E.2d 211

87 Ga.App. 167

SHELEY v. SOUTHEASTERN NEWSPAPERS, Inc. et al.

No. 34286.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Nov. 8, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court.

The portion of the article sued on as being libel was capable of being understood in a double sense, the one criminal and the other innocent, and the plaintiff alleged by innuendo that it was published as being the former; therefore the petition alleged a good cause of action as against a general demurrer.

C. D. Sheley sued Southeastern Newspapers, Inc., and Newspaper Printing Corporation for damages for an alleged libel. The petition alleged substantially: that the defendants published, printed, and circulated an issue of The Augusta Chronicle under the date of Saturday morning, February 9, 1952, which issue carried an article, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A; that a portion of such article read as follows: 'Homes of Rupert Langford, former superintendent of schools and now deceased, a Mr. McNabb, Mr. Templeton and C. D. Sheley, now principal of John Milledge school, were alleged to have been painted by the board's paint crew at taxpayers' expense'; that the plaintiff is the C. D. Sheley referred to, and that he is now principal of John Milledge School in Augusta and has been for a period of four years; that prior thereto the plaintiff was principal of the Houghton Grammar School in Augusta for a period of two years; that the plaintiff has spent his entire life in an effort to live honestly and obtain the respect of the community where he and his family reside and where he serves as a superintendent of a public school; that the statement to the effect that his house had been painted by the Board of Education with Board of Education paint at the taxpayers' expense was untrue, false, and malicious; that the plaintiff did obtain the services of W. R. Nickles to paint his home, and Nickles did paint his house during his spare hours when he was not employed by the Board of Education, the work being performed on Saturdays, and during his off-hours when he was not working for or supposed to be working for the Board of Education, and that prior to said painting he entered into a contract with the said Nickles to paint the house and furnish the paint for $225; that the work was performed in September, 1951, and the plaintiff paid Nickles $225 in accordance with the contract; that the statement to the effect that the plaintiff's house was painted by the board's crew at the taxpayers' expense was absolutely untrue, false, unfounded, and malicious, and was made with complete disregard of the true facts, and that no effort was made by the defendants to obtain the true facts from the plaintiff or any other reliable source; that the false statement was not a portion of any report from the so-called 'Watchdog Committee' of the grand jury or the grand jury itself, but was simply a statement falsely and maliciously made by the defendants; that the statement charged the plaintiff with being a thief and charged him with violating Code, § 26-2602; that the statement charged the plaintiff with being a common cheat and swindler and held him out to the public generally as being a common cheat and swindler and as violating Code, § 26-7410; that the intention was to charge that the plaintiff had had his personal home and dwelling painted by a paint crew of the Richmond County Board of Education, and that the paint was furnished by said board at the taxpayers' expense, and that thus the plaintiff had obtained said services and paint for his personal gain from the treasury of the Board of Education; that the plaintiff was humiliated, embarrassed, and insulted, and his reputation was practically destroyed by the false and malicious charges, and that the charges accused the plaintiff of violating the criminal statutes of this State involving moral turpitude of the most serious nature, all to the humiliation, embarrassment, and damage of the plaintiff; that, if the defendants had exercised the slightest interest in printing the truth, or in sparing the plaintiff's feelings, they could easily have contacted the plaintiff before making, uttering, and issuing such false publication, and any effort on the part of the defendants would have resulted in their being informed that the charges they were preparing to publish were entirely unfounded and untrue.

Exhibit A of the petition was as follows: "Watchdog' report. School Paint Deals Draw Accusations. In detail, and naming names, the 'watchdog' committee report has leveled an accusing finger toward disposition of tax-purchased paint supplies in the hands of a Richmond Board of Education paint crew.

'This committee was appointed by a Richmond grand jury early this year to continue a probe of the Richmond Board of Education. A report of the committee's activities was given the jury Tuesday and a recommendation was made by the jury that information in the report be made public.

"Our examination of the various records * * * brought to our attention what appears to us to be an extravagant amount of paint bought and allegedly used by the paint crew employed by the board', the report states on page 23.

'Foreman of the paint crew is named as W. R. Nickles, brother of T. M. Nickles, president of the school board for approximately 10 years, who went out of office this year. J. C. Norrell, brother-in-law of T. M. Nickles, is named as another member of the paint crew along with J. E. Nickles, nephew of T. M. Nickles.

'The 'watchdog' committee drew attention to testimony from W. R. Nickles that 'there has been no accounting whatever of the quantity of paint and...