Hartridge v. Savannah News-Press, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | NEWS-PRES,No. 39877,INC,No. 3,39877,3 |
| Citation | 129 S.E.2d 536,107 Ga.App. 274 |
| Parties | Julian HARTRIDGE, Sr. v. SAVANNAH Division |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The second count of the petition, as amended after the decision on the former appearance of this case in this court, stated a cause of action for libel and the judge of the superior court erred in sustaining the general demurrer thereto.
Lewis, Wylly & Javetz, Emanuel Lewis, Walter Hartridge, II, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Stephens & Gignilliat, Thomas H. Gignilliat, Savannah, for defendant in error.
This is the second appearance of this case before this court. For a full statement of the pleadings prior to their amendment after the former appearance, see Savannah News-Press, Inc. v. Hartridge, 104 Ga.App. 22, 120 S.E.2d 918, and especially with reference to the matter now before the court that portion of the opinion dealing with count 2 of the petition beginning on page 26, on page 920 of 120 S.E.2d.
After the case was reversed by this court and before the remittitur was made the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an amendment to count 2 of the petition adding allegations to the following effect: (A) that the article published by the defendant was false and libelous and not a truthful and fair account of the police court proceeding and was false and inaccurate in that it falsely stated that the vehicle driven by the plaintiff was "forever trying to cross the white center line, particularly going around Savannah's famous squares"; that such facts were not testified to by the officer; that the effect and innuendo of the entire story was to convey the impression that the plaintiff may have been intoxicated and that he drove his vehicle repeatedly over the center line of the road and had several times violated an ordinance of the City of Savannah forbidding the weaving and driving of an automobile from one traffic lane into another except where necessary to pass another automobile proceeding in the same direction; (B) that the portion of the article to the effect that every time the patrolman would turn on his flashing red light and sound his siren the plaintiff's car would stop but wouldn't stay stopped, was false and not an honest reporting of the case, and that the innuendo thereof was that the plaintiff was trying to avoid being caught and was fleeing from an officer and the whole effect of the article was that the plaintiff was a violator of the law and was seeking to elude the patrolman and disobeyed his signal to stop; (C) that the statement in the article attributed to the plaintiff as his explanation to the recorder of why he crossed the center line that "there were parked cars in the way: I had to cross the center line," was false and not a truthful reporting of what was stated by the plaintiff at the police court hearing, and the innuendo thereof was that there were several occasions on which the plaintiff crossed the center line and that he used the same lame excuses for each such violation of the law. It was further alleged in said amendment that the false statements in the newspaper article and the untruthful reporting of the case conveyed the impression to the general reader, and were maliciously intended to do so, that plaintiff was a violator of traffic laws and a reckless driver, that he could well have been under the influence of intoxicants; that he illegally drove his car; that he did not heed the signals of the patrolman to stop but tried to elude the patrolman and was finally caught, all of which was false and untrue.
The amendment was allowed subject to objection and demurrer. The defendant filed renewed demurrers and demurred generally and specially to the amendment and to the petition as amended. The trial court sustained the general demurrers and dismissed the action and the exception here is to that judgment.
It is elementary that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malone v. City of Rossville, 39851
... ... See Dixie-Ohio Express, Inc. v. Brackett, 106 Ga.App. 862, 874, 128 S.E.2d 642, and citations ... ...
-
Lester v. International Broth. of Boilermakers, 41713
...Car Co. v. Martin, 92 Ga. 161, 18 S.E. 364.' Harvey v. Zell, 87 Ga.App. 280, 284 (1d), 73 S.E.2d 605, 608; Hartridge v. Savannah News-Press, 107 Ga.App. 274, 276, 129 S.E.2d 536. The petition, as amended, although somewhat general in its allegations relating to agency, sufficiently alleged ......
-
Savannah News-Press, Inc. v. Hartridge
...this court again reversed, holding that with the added allegations the petition was good against demurrer. Hartridge v. Savannah News-Press, Inc., 107 Ga.App. 274, 129 S.E.2d 536. Defendant filed defenses both on the ground of truth or justification, and of The case was tried before a jury.......