Murphy v. News and Courier Co.

• Decision Date: 23 August 1927
• Docket Number: 12249.
• Citation: Murphy v. News and Courier Co., 139 SE. 189, 141 S.C. 51 (S.C. 1927)
• Parties: MURPHY v. NEWS AND COURIER CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

139 S.E. 189

141 S.C. 51

MURPHY v. NEWS AND COURIER CO.

No. 12249.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

August 23, 1927

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; M. L Bonham, Judge.

Action for libel by Thomas W. Murphy against the News and Courier Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Logan & Grace, of Charleston, for appellant.

Mitchell & Horlbeck, of Charleston, for respondent.

WHITING A. A. J.

Action for libel arising out of the publication of a news item appearing in the News and Courier, in issue of date August 16, 1924, as follows:

"Police Sleuths Capture Launch.

Sack and Stevens Seize 'Shine' Whisky on the Woodlawn.

The launch Woodlawn, a forty-foot freight and passenger boat valued at $3,500, was yesterday afternoon seized by federal prohibition officers following the discovery by police detectives of thirty odd fruit jars of 'shine' stored on her forward deck, and T. M. Murphy, who has for many years piloted the boat in her trips up the Wando river, was lodged behind the bars of the police station in default of $100 bond for his appearance in the police court this morning to answer charges of violating the prohibition law.

Detectives Sack and Stevens, prowling in the vicinity of the Accommodation wharf, where the boat was tied, when they decided to have a look at the innocent appearing old freighter, and a casual search revealed the presence of thirty-three fruit jars of liquor rather carelessly thrown on the forward deck, some of it with no covering of any description around it.

Chief of Police Thomas P. Rutledge and Chief of Detectives John J. Healy hastened to the scene, and the whisky and Captain Murphy were removed to the station house.

Following the seizure by the police, Federal Prohibition Officer Alonzo Seabrook swore out a warrant for Murphy, and removed the Woodlawn to the Charleston Dry Dock & Machine Company for storage."

The matter complained of as libel is the statement in the first paragraph of the article that Captain Murphy (the plaintiff in this action) was "lodged behind the bars of the police station in default of $100 bond." The publication of this statement is alleged as false, malicious defamatory, and libelous, and as tending "to hold the plaintiff up to ridicule, scorn, contumely, and contempt in the minds of his fellow citizens and to place him in disrepute." The elements of damage alleged in the complaint are that plaintiff "has been injured in his reputation and his business and hurt in his feelings to his damage of $15,000." Other allegations in the complaint relate to the business, reputation, and standing of plaintiff and the application of the publication to plaintiff, as intended and also as necessarily understood by those who read the article. As matter of innuendo, the plaintiff further alleges in the sixth paragraph of his complaint:

"That the defendant by such publication falsely published and meant to publish the plaintiff as being a person of such poor standing in the community in which he lives and does business, and has for the past several years lived and done business, as to have been unable to obtain any one to go on his bond in the amount of $100 to secure his appearance at the police court, or of being in such a condition of financial destitution as to have been unable to raise an amount of $100 to be deposited to secure such appearance, and further falsely published the plaintiff, and mean to publish him, as having been subjected to the disgrace of having been locked up in a cell in the police station, and by implication of having had to spend a night locked up in such cell."

The sufficiency of the complaint to make out a cause of action was questioned by oral demurrer made, after due notice, on the call of the case for trial. In addition to the ground that the words of the article (in the matters complained of) were not libelous per se and that there was no allegation of special...