Rivers v. Florence Printing Co.

• Decision Date: 07 October 1927
• Docket Number: 12282.
• Citation: 139 S.E. 781,141 S.C. 364
• Parties: RIVERS v. FLORENCE PRINTING CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

139 S.E. 781

141 S.C. 364

RIVERS v. FLORENCE PRINTING CO. et al.

No. 12282.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 7, 1927

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; S.W. G Shipp, Judge.

The following are the complaint, demurrer, order, and exceptions:

Complaint.

The plaintiff above named, complaining of the defendants herein alleges:

(1) That at the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant Florence Printing Company was and now is a corporation duly created and existing under the laws of the state of South Carolina, for the purpose of the publication of a certain newspaper called the Morning News Review, which has a general circulation among subscribers thereto throughout the state of South Carolina; and the defendant J. B. Parnell was manager of said newspaper and conducting the business of and for the said corporation.

(2) That at the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was a resident of the county of Richland, in the state of South Carolina, and was employed as a traveling salesman by Glasgow-Stewart & Co., of Charlotte, N. C., and in the course of his employment by said company this defendant traveled through a large portion of the state of South Carolina, and through the counties of Florence and Darlington, in an automobile, selling auto parts to various dealers, and upon information and belief this plaintiff alleges that he is the only person by the name of Rivers traveling by automobile and selling auto parts in that section of South Carolina in which the counties of Florence and Darlington are situate.

(3) That on the 4th day of June, 1924, plaintiff was a married man and the father of three infant children, all under the age of nine years, and with his said family resided in the city of Columbia, in the state of South Carolina.

(4) That the plaintiff is rather slim and of dark complexion.

(5) That, on the 4th day of June, 1924, the defendants herein willfully and maliciously composed and published in said Morning News Review, a newspaper, of and concerning the plaintiff, the following false and defamatory matter, to wit "Mother wants to find eloping daughter. Lillian Atkins 14 year old daughter of Mrs. A. L. Atkins, of Dovesville left home Sunday night supposedly with a friend, named Rivers, 35 years of age, and has not been seen since. The girl is 5 feet 5 inches tall, has blue eyes, bobbed hair, light complexion, weighs 100 pounds. Rivers is a traveling salesman, selling auto parts. He is rather slim, dark complexion, and travels in a cherry colored car. Any information regarding the whereabouts of the couple will be greatly appreciated by the girl's mother at Doves, S. C."-the said false and defamatory matter being printed on the front page of said newspaper.

(6) That by reason of the said publication the plaintiff has been greatly injured in his reputation, his credit and business, has suffered loss of trade with the dealers to whom he sells, the happiness of his home has been threatened, and he has been deprived of gains and profits which otherwise he would have made, and has sustained great loss and injury otherwise on account of the said publication, to his damage in the sum of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars.

Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment for the sum of $10,000, and for the cost and expenses of this action.

Demurrer.

Now comes the defendants above named by their attorneys, the subscribers hereto, not waiving but specifically reserving the right to answer and demur to the complaint on the grounds that it appears upon the face of the complaint that the said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that:

First. That the publication, as alleged in paragraph 5 of said complaint, was obviously not calculated to injure the plaintiff in his business reputation and standing.

Second. That the publication was not inspired by malice.

Third. That the publication was not intended to impeach the reputation of plaintiff and to thereby injure him in his business.

Fourth. That the alleged libelous matter is not actionable either as a libel per se or as a libel per quod.

Fifth. That there is a complete absence of any allegation as to any charge which the defendants intended to make, and which those to whom the newspaper in question was sent understood to be...