Black v. State Co

• Decision Date: 10 January 1913
• Citation: 77 S.E. 51,93 S.C. 467
• Parties: BLACK et al. v. STATE CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

77 S.E. 51
93 S.C. 467

BLACK et al.
v.
STATE CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 10, 1913.

On Petition for Rehearing, Feb. 4, 1913.

1. Pleading (§ 214^*)— Complaint—Demurrer—Admissions.

The court, in ruling on a demurrer to a complaint, will take the allegations of the complaint as true.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading. Cent. Dig. §§ 525-534; Dec. Dig.§ 214.*]

[77 S.E. 52]

2. Libel and Slander (§ 6^2-*) — Libelous Words.

Written words, tending to diminish the respectability of a person to whom they relate, or to expose him to disgrace and obloquy, are libelous, though they do not impute the commission of a crime, and though no special damages are claimed.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, eee Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-16; Dec. Dig. § 6.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4116-4125.]

.;. Libel and Slander (§ 97*) — Libelous Words—Complaint—Sufficiency.

A complaint, in an action for libel, which alleges that defendant, a newspaper, threatened to destroy the business of plaintiff unless he would cease his efforts against a candidate for office, and that, in pursuance of such purpose, defendant falsely and maliciously published in its paper that plaintiff refrained from making an open charge against the candidate at a proper time, but subsequently resorted to secret, insidious, and discreditable charges, when it was too late for the candidate and his friends to refute them, is good as against a demurrer.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent.Dig. §§ 234-236: Dec.Dig. §97.*]

4. Libel and Slander (§ 123*)—Criticism in the Discussion of Public Affairs.

The question, when newspaper criticism in the discussion of public affairs ceases to be fair and honest and becomes libelous, is usually for the jury, and may rarely be decided on demurrer.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 356-364; Dec. Dig. § 123.*]

5. Libel and Slander (§ 123*) — Libelous Words—Meaning.

The court, in determining whether words are libelous, must give to them their ordinary and popular meaning; and where they are susceptible of two meanings, one libelous and the other innocent, the sense in which they were used is for the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 356-364; Dec. Dig. § 123.*]

Watts, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; R. E. Copes, Judge.

Actions by John E. Black, E. O. Black, and Fingal C. Black against the State Company. From orders sustaining demurrers to the complaints and dismissing them, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Rembert & Monteith, of Columbia, for appellants.

Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for respondent.

FRASER, J. This is an action for libel. The following is the complaint:

"Complaint.

"The plaintiff above named, complaining of the defendant above named, alleges:

"(1) That the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the city of Columbia, county of Richland, and" state of South Carolina, and engaged as a plain business man in the business of real estate and insurance, and also as secretary and treasurer of two building and loan companies in the said city of Columbia.

"(2) That the defendant is a corporation duly chartered under and by virtue of the laws of the state of South Carolina, and its principal place of business being located in Columbia, in the said state, and its principal business being the publication and circulation of a daily newspaper known as the 'State, ' which said newspaper has a wide circulation in the said city of Columbia and throughout several states, including the state of South Carolina.

"(3) That the said plaintiff, while exercising his rights as a citizen, on Tuesday, May 3, 1910, which was election day in the said city of Columbia, was threatened and warned away from the voting precinct in the said city of Columbia by the defendant herein, which threats and warnings to the plaintiff consisted in a statement by the defendant that, if the said plaintiff did not leave the voting precinct and cease his efforts to influence voters to vote against one Charles C. Wilson, who was at that time a candidate for councilman for the said city of Columbia, that the said defendant would write up the said plaintiff in the newspaper known as the 'State, ' and thereby ruin the business of the said plaintiff.

"(4) Subsequent thereto, to wit on May 4, 1910. the newspaper known as the 'State, ' published and circulated by the defendant herein, contained the following news item on page 1:

" 'Wilson Defeated by Fifty Votes.

" 'He Was Fought at the Polls by Fingal C. Black's Friends.

"'Vote Nearly as Large as that of the Week Before.

" 'The defeat of C. C. Wilson was deplored by his friends last night. A terrific fight had been sprung on him in the last 24 hours, and before his friends could offset the attack, the voting was on. Brothers of Fingal C. Black were at the polls yesterday urging voters to cut Mr. Wilson. It will be recalled that there was a bitter controversy between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Black 18 months ago, and Mr. Wilson was sustained by council.'

"That the plaintiff herein is one of the brothers of Fingal C. Black referred to in the said paragraph.

"(5) That in the same issue of the above-named paper appears the following editorial on page 4 of the said newspaper:

" 'Columbia's Commission. " 'The commission to manage the municipal affairs of Columbia under the new form of government was completed yesterday by the election of three councilmen, Messrs. Blalock, Steeglits, and Keenan. In the first primary W. H. Gibbes was elected mayor and R. W. Shand, councilman.

[77 S.E. 53]

" 'The state regrets the defeat of Charles C. Wilson and Charles Narey because it believes their services to the people of Columbia would have been exceptionally valuable. It regrets, too, the methods, unfair and discreditable, that were used to compass the defeat of Mr. Wilson. We do not recall a parallel in Columbia.

" 'But the commission is elected, and will receive from us the most cordial support in its work for Columbia. We have confidence in the ability and in the progressiveness of the majority of the board, and faith in the ability of our new system to get the best out of all councilmen. We hope the regrets now entertained at the loss to the commission of the services of Wilson and Narey will be speedily removed by the efficiency of the work performed by the councilmen chosen in their stead.

" 'Columbians have their faces turned toward a period that has promise of except tionally great prosperity. Opportunity, in several guises, is knocking at our doors. The economical, progressive, energetic, management of a city is the surest guarantee of peace, prosperity, and happiness. Columbia now has the way opened for good government, and the State promises its most cordial support to each and every member of the new commission in an effort to make Columbia conspicuous among the cities of the southeast for the wise administration of her affairs.

" 'A new order of things has come. Past policies will be abandoned, and a strict accounting exacted. Columbia shall have good government, and shall take her place at the very front'

"That the said editorial, in connection with the local on page 1 of the said newspaper, as above set forth, directs public attention to the plaintiff herein, and denominates his methods of fighting the said Mr. Wilson as unfair and discreditable, and that the said libelous publication was malicious and false, and intended to impeach the honesty, integrity, and reputation of the plaintiff herein, and therefore to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy, and to injure him in his business and occupation.

"(6) That subsequent to the libelous publication above set forth on the morning of May 5, 1910, the said defendant published the following editorial on page 4 of the 'State':

" 'Assassination at the Polls.

" 'Doubtless Fingal C. Black and his relatives are pleased with the part they played on Tuesday, and doubtless they are not concerned in the State's conception of that part Nevertheless, as they took a public position contrary to the will of nearly seven hundred Columbians, it is our privilege, in behalf of those 682 voters and in behalf of all men who wish a fair fight, and a square deal in politics, to express the opinion that their policy was unfair, and an injustice and offense to this community which is striving for good government.

" 'The details of the enmity of Mr. Black to Mr. Wilson are not material. It is sufficient for the public understanding to know that while on Columbia's streets as engineer, under Mr. Wilson, a disagreement arose, and it became impossible for the...