Jones v. Garner
| Citation | 158 S.E.2d 909,250 S.C. 479 |
| Decision Date | 09 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 18747,18747 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | , 32 A.L.R.3d 1417 Wendell JONES, Respondent, v. Mark GARNER and the Sun-News, Appellants. |
McCaskill & Thompson, Conway, D. W. Robinson, Columbia, for appellants.
James P. Stevens, of Stevens & Holt, Loris, for respondent.
This action for libel arose out of an alleged defamatory publication concerning plaintiff in The Sun-News, a weekly newspaper published at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The Sun-News carried in its issue of July 29, 1965 a front page news article in which the fact was reported that the Internal Revenue Service had filed income tax liens against plaintiff, other named members of his family, and four corporations in which they were stockholders. The preceding headline, however, stated that 'tax evasion charges' had been filed against those named and the first paragraph of the article stated that they had been charged with evading payment of taxes. The plaintiff, alleging that reference in the headline and news article to the filing of 'tax evasion charges' against him was libelous, brought this action against the owner and publisher of The Sun-News to recover damages allegedly sustained by him from such publication. The defendant denied the libelous character of the article, and alleged that, when the terminology used was taken in context and interpreted in the light of common usage, it was an accurate report on an item of general news.
Upon the trial, timely motions of the defendant for nonsuit and directed verdict were denied and the issues submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $10,000 actual and $5,000 punitive damages. Defendant has appealed from the denial by the lower court of his post trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial. We have concluded that defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was properly denied, and that his motion for a new trial should have been granted.
The appeal from the denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is based upon the contention by defendant that the trial judge should have directed a verdict in his favor (a), generally, because the publication (1) was not defamatory of plaintiff and (2) was made within a qualified privilege without malice in fact; and (b), particularly, as to punitive damages because there was no evidence to sustain such award.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged, in substance, that the references to tax evasion in the headline and news article charged him with fraud and dishonesty in connection with his income tax transactions with the Federal Government, that such charged the commission of a crime, and was so understood by those reading the publication. The issue of whether the publication was susceptible of the defamatory meaning alleged in the complaint was submitted by the trial judge to the jury to determine. Our first inquiry is whether he erred in doing so.
If the words used are unambiguous and incapable of an innocent meaning, the court may declare them libelous as a matter of law.
However, the alleged defamatory words used 'must be given their ordinary popular meaning, and if they are susceptible of two meanings, one slanderous and the other innocent, it must be left to the jury to determine from all of the circumstances attending the publication, in what sense the defendant used them.' Nettles v. MacMillan Petroleum Corporation, 210 S.C. 200, 42 S.E.2d 57. Duncan v. Record Pub. Co., 145 S.C. 196, 143 S.E. 31. Williamson v. Askin & Marine Co., 138 S.C. 47, 136 S.E. 21; Davis v. Niederhof, 246 S.C. 192, 143 S.E.2d 367.
It is also well settled that 'the intent and meaning of an alleged defamatory statement must be gathered not only from the words singled out as libelous, but from the context; all of the parts of the publication must be considered in order to ascertain the true meaning, and words are not to be given a meaning other than that which the context would show them to have.' 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander, Section 87.
The controversy here concerns the meaning to be attributed to the reference to 'tax evasion' in the headline and article. The following headline preceded the article: 'TAX EVASION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO $1,971,174 FILED AGAINST JONES FAMILY; FOUR COMPANIES.' The first paragraph of the article stated: 'Three Myrtle Beach brothers, their wives and the father and mother of the men have been charged with evading the payment of $1,971,174.75 in income taxes, the Internal Revenue Service said today.' The article then reports the filing by the Internal Revenue Service of income tax liens against the various members of the Jones family, including the plaintiff. With particular reference to the plaintiff, the following was reported: The article concluded with a statement attributed to the District Director of Internal Revenue Service that 'it has therefore been considered necessary for the Revenue Service to take certain steps including the filing of tax liens so as to assure ultimate satisfaction of federal taxes due and unpaid.'
The only reference in the publication to tax evasion was in the headline and the first paragraph of the article. The remainder of the article correctly reported the filing of the various tax liens to cover taxes due and unpaid by the various parties.
While a headline, which precedes a correct and true article, may within itself be libelous, we do not think that the headline in this case falls within that category, but must be construed in connection with the article it precedes to determine whether it had a defamatory meaning. 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander, Section 88.
The term 'tax evasion' is susceptible of both a defamatory and an innocent construction. In the defamatory sense, it is a crime denoting concealment and an attempt to escape by wrongdoing the payment of taxes due the government. Title 26, U.S.C.A. Section 7201. In the non-defamatory sense it means tax avoidance--that is, taking advantage of lawful tax avoiding devices with the objective of minimizing the tax burden. If the intent and meaning of the publication was to report that plaintiff had been charged with the crime of tax evasion, it would be actionable. If on the other hand the publication conveyed the meaning that the Internal Revenue Service had simply filed tax liens to assure the payment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers
...them to have." Boone v. Sunbelt Newspapers, Inc., 347 S.C. 571, 582, 556 S.E.2d 732, 738 (Ct.App.2001) (quoting Jones v. Garner, 250 S.C. 479, 485, 158 S.E.2d 909, 912 (1968)). The article states one guardian had been accused of sleeping with the father of a child she represented, and plain......
-
Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc.
...but reverse the award of punitive damages. MOORE, J., concurs. 1.Capps v. Watts, 271 S.C. 276, 246 S.E.2d 606 (1978); Jones v. Garner, 250 S.C. 479, 158 S.E.2d 909 (1968); Whitaker v. Sherbrook Distributing Co., 189 S.C. 243, 200 S.E. 848 (1939); Merritt v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,......
-
Garrard v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist.
..."[f]air and impartial reports in newspapers of matters of public interest are qualifiedly privileged." Jones v. Garner , 250 S.C. 479, 487, 158 S.E.2d 909, 913 (1968). "It is not necessary that [the report] be exact in every immaterial detail or that it conform to that precision demanded in......
-
Parrish v. Allison
...Co., 130 S.C. 180, 183, 125 S.E. 912, 913 (1924)); see also Sandifer v. Electrolux Corp., 172 F.2d 548 (1949); Jones v. Garner, 250 S.C. 479, 485, 158 S.E.2d 909, 912 (1968) ("[A]ll of the parts of the publication must be considered in order to ascertain the true meaning, and words are not ......