Knoxville Pub. Co. v. Taylor, 7.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1948
• Docket Number: No. 7.,7.
• Citation: 215 S.W.2d 27
• Parties: KNOXVILLE PUB. CO. et al. v. TAYLOR et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

215 S.W.2d 27

KNOXVILLE PUB. CO. et al. v. TAYLOR et al.

No. 7.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

July 14, 1948.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court October 16, 1948.

Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Knox County; Jno. M. Kelly, Judge.

Separate actions by Joe Neal Taylor and by Sarah Taylor against Knoxville Publishing Company, Roy N. Lotspeich and Guy L. Smith for damages for libel, which actions were tried together. Judgments for plaintiffs and defendants appeal.

Affirmed as to corporate defendant and causes dismissed as to individual defendants as on directed verdicts.

Frantz, McConnell & Seymour and E. B. Foster, all of Knoxville, for plaintiffs in error.

Taylor & Badgett, of Knoxville, for defendants in error.

McAMIS, Judge.

These two suits, tried together in the Circuit Court and here on appeal by the defendants Knoxville Publishing Company, Roy N. Lotspeich and Guy L. Smith, are actions in tort based upon an alleged libel appearing in the Knoxville Journal on September 24, 1946, in the following language:

"Waive Hearing

"Joe Neal Taylor and Mrs. Sarah Taylor, of 1758 Blount Avenue, were bound to the grand jury yesterday under $1000 bonds after waiving preliminary hearing in General Sessions Court. They are charged with receiving and concealing more than $50.00 worth of stolen property, officers said."

The Knoxville Journal is a daily newspaper having a circulation of over 92,000 published by the Knoxville Publishing Company, a corporation. Roy N. Lotspeich is president of the publisher. Knoxville Publishing Company, and Guy L. Smith is the editor of the Knoxville Journal. Their liabilities as individuals will require separate consideration.

A motion for peremptory instructions made by the three defendants at the close of all the evidence was overruled and a verdict for $200.00 in each case was approved by the court in overruling defendants' motion for a new trial. By the assignments it is insisted the publication is not libelous per se; that, if libelous per se, as shown by undisputed evidence, it was made purely by mistake and without malice and promptly retracted as soon as the mistake was discovered; that no actual damages have been shown and, for all of these reasons, the court erred in not directing a verdict for defendants. It is also insisted in behalf of the individual defendants, Lotspeich and Smith, that the evidence fails to connect them in any way with the alleged libel and, for that further reason, a verdict in their favor should have been directed. Other questions relate to the refusal of the Court to grant a new trial for errors in the charge.

A brief chronological statement of events will suffice. A few days prior to September 24, 1946, the date of the publication, a step-son of plaintiff, Joe Neal Taylor, who was also the son of Mrs. Taylor, was arrested on the charge of receiving stolen property. Mr. and Mrs. Taylor became sureties on his appearance bond in the General Sessions Court. Reporter Rainey of the Knoxville Journal, at about 5:20 P. M. on September 23rd, in examining the records of the court proceedings for that day, saw the names of Mr. and Mrs. Taylor on the bond and, without examining the warrant or making other investigation, mistakenly assumed that they were charged in the warrant as defendants. Rainey testified that the mistake was due to the inadequate time allowed for examining the court records and to his great haste in completing the task. The following day the item was published under court news, according to Rainey, as a "filler". The present suits were filed September 27, 1946 and the following appeared on the front page of the Journal on September 28, 1946:

"Apology Given to Taylors by Journal

"The Knoxville Journal regrets that the citizens who signed the bond were erroneously named defendants in a General Sessions record reported in the September 24 edition.

"Thomas N. Edwards was bound to the grand jury Sept. 23 under $1000 bond after waiving preliminary hearing in General Sessions Court on charges of receiving and concealing stolen property. Mr. and Mrs. Joe Neal Taylor, Blount Avenue, erroneously reported as defendants, were securities who made bond for Edwards, their kinsman.

"The Knoxville Journal was unaware of the error until it was learned that a law suit was filed against the newspaper yesterday in Circuit Court by Mrs. Taylor. The Journal extends its apologies to Mr. and Mrs. Taylor."

We agree with the Circuit Judge that the publication is libelous per se and that it was unnecessary for plaintiffs to prove malice or actual damages. The rule is firmly established that the false statement or imputation of the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude is libelous per se and damages are presumed to accrue as a matter of law. See Williams v. Karnes, 23 Tenn. 9, 10; Fry v. McCord, 95 Tenn. 678, 685, 33 S.W. 568; Travis v. Bacherig, 7 Tenn.App. 638, 644; Little Stores v. Isenberg, 26 Tenn.App. 357, 362, 172 S.W.2d 13. Consistently, larceny or a charge imputing larceny is held libelous per se. Wilson v. Gadd, 13 Tenn.App. 6; Little Stores v. Isenberg, supra.

It is insisted, however, that the commission of a crime is neither directly charged nor necessarily imputed in the publication upon which the present actions are based. We cannot agree. The rule to be deduced from the uniform holdings is that a false publication charging that one has been indicted or arrested for crime is governed by the same principles as direct accusations of crime and is libelous per se. Hanson v. Krehbiel, 68 Kan. 670, 75 P. 1041, 64 L.R.A. 790, 104 Am.St.Rep. 422; Brewer v. Chase, 121 Mich. 526, 80 N.W. 575, 46 L.R.A. 397, 80 Am.St.Rep. 527; Thorson v. Albert Lea Pub. Co., 190 Minn. 200, 251 N.W. 177, 90 A.L.R. 1169; Jones v. Townsend, 21 Fla. 431, 58 Am.Rep. 676; Witham v. Atlanta Journal, 124 Ga. 688, 53 S.E. 105, 4 L.R.A.,N.S., 977.

There was no error in charging the jury that...