Mattson v. Albert

• Decision Date: 19 September 1896
• Citation: 36 S.W. 1090,97 Tenn. 232
• Parties: MATTSON v. ALBERT.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

36 S.W. 1090

97 Tenn. 232

MATTSON v. ALBERT.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September 19, 1896

Error to circuit court, Hamilton county; John A. Moon, Judge.

Action by P. R. Albert against E. W. Mattson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Shepherd & Frierson, for plaintiff in error.

Daniels & Garvin, for defendant in error.

WILKES J.

This is an action for libel. There was a trial before the court and jury, and a verdict and judgment for $300; and defendant has appealed, and assigned only one error. Plaintiff was the manager of the Chattanooga Opera-House Company, and defendant was the publisher of a newspaper at Chattanooga, called the "Chattanooga Press." Publications were made in the newspaper in regard to certain shows advertised to appear at the opera house. The publications contained statements made by the New York Clipper, a publication devoted largely to theatrical matters; also, certain statements in addition made by the Chattanooga paper, and some quite severe and caustic criticisms upon the management, calculated to injure the business. There was a general plea of not guilty, but no plea of justification. There was an additional plea that the publications were conditionally privileged, and made in good faith and without malice. On the trial of the case it appeared from the evidence that there was a bad state of feeling between the publisher of the paper and the manager of the opera house, and ill-tempered criticism was indulged in by the newspaper. This was repeated, with some quite caustic comments, after the paper had been notified of the falsity of the statements. It clearly appeared that some statements made, to the effect that the prices of admission had been raised by the opera company, were not true. Such statements, of course, were calculated to injure the patronage of the opera company, and its business, and the comments were calculated to make the public believe that it was being imposed upon by the opera company by its advertising certain companies to appear which were elsewhere with their shows. The charge of the court is not excepted to, save upon a single point. Upon the question of privileged communications it was not objected to, but was conceded to be correct. In connection with its charge upon what constitutes a privileged communication, the court said "If a statement is shown to be libelous per se, then the malice which is necessary to support an action is presumed as a matter of law." It is...