Sheftall v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 August 1905
• Citation: 51 S.E. 646,123 Ga. 589
• Parties: SHEFTALL v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

51 S.E. 646

123 Ga. 589

SHEFTALL v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 2, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

One may publish, by speech or writing, whatever he honestly believes is essential to the protection of his own rights or those of another, provided the publication be not unnecessarily made to others than to those whom the publisher honestly believes are concerned in the subject-matter of the publication.

The statement must be no broader and the publication no wider than the interest to be subserved demands. Care must be taken not only to keep the statement within proper limits as to its subject-matter, but also that it be not made to those who are wholly without interest in the matter.

"Where the expressions employed are allowable in all respects, the manner of the publication may take them out of the privilege."

Mere publication to a stranger will not always destroy the privilege, if it appears that the communication, prima facie privileged, was made in the hearing of third persons not legally interested, and whose presence was merely casual, and not sought by the publisher.

To make the defense of privilege complete in an action of slander or libel, good faith, an interest to be upheld, a statement properly limited in its scope, a proper occasion, and publication to proper persons must all appear. The absence of any one or more of these constituent elements will, as a general rule, prevent the party from relying on the privilege.

When a railway company discharges a conductor, and it comes to its knowledge that there are still in his possession tickets of the company which were delivered to him while in its employment, which he at that time had a right to sell, and which he refuses or fails to surrender, the company has a right, in order to protect its own interest, to take such precautions as are reasonably necessary to prevent the use of the tickets by persons not entitled to use them.

A publication by a railway company, under such circumstances to persons whose knowledge is necessary to its protection, is authorized.

The publication, however, if couched in terms which would be per se libelous, or libelous if published under circumstances which would make it of such character, would not be privileged, if it was communicated to persons not concerned with the matter of the outstanding tickets, whether such persons be strangers or other employés of the company.

The charge of the judge did not distinctly submit to the jury the controlling issue in the case--as to whether the publication was unnecessarily made to others than those concerned in the matter of preventing the use of the un-surrendered tickets.

Whether the writing was a libel under the circumstances under which it was published was to be determined by the jury, after taking into consideration the terms of the writing, the circumstances of the publication, their knowledge of the meaning of the words employed, and the impression the use of such words under such circumstances would make upon the mind of a person of average intelligence; and it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by witnesses what they understood the writing to mean.

The rulings upon evidence were free from error.

Error from City Court of Macon; Robert Hodges, Judge.

Action by W. C. Sheftall against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Whether the writing was a libel under the circumstances was a question for the jury, after considering the terms of the writing, the circumstances of the publication, the meaning of the words employed, and the impression the use of such words would make on the mind of a person of average intelligence and it is not incumbent on the plaintiff to prove by witnesses what they understood the writing to mean.

Sheftall brought his action against the railway company for libel. The petition alleged, in substance, as follows: On November 9, 1902, the plaintiff was discharged from the service of the defendant as a passenger conductor because of a mistake as to an order. His application for reinstatement was pending until June 3, 1903, when it was finally refused. When the plaintiff was discharged he had in his possession certain mileage and exchange tickets and sleeping car and parlor car tickets, which were unused, and were good for passage over the defendant's line of railway, and which had been given the plaintiff as a part of a conductor's equipment. The plaintiff was ready at any time to turn over all of these tickets to the defendant, and defendant knew that fact, but failed to call upon him for them. On the contrary, during all of the period from his discharge until his application for reinstatement was refused plaintiff was led to believe that he would be reinstated. Notwithstanding this, the defendant maliciously, and with the intent to injure the plaintiff's good name, credit, peace, and happiness, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, did compose and publish, by and through certain named officials, a false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory circular, of which the following is a copy:

"Central of Georgia Railway Company. Passenger Department. Circular No. 3737. Savannah, December 31st, 1902. All Passenger Conductors: File No. ____ X. 6111. Bulletin. Tickets lost and scalped: Mileage exchange tickets Form M. E. T. Nos. A-4630 to 4649 inclusive, also Parlor and sleeping-car tickets, Form S.C. Nos. T-6110 to 6199 inclusive. Mr. W. C. Sheftall, formerly employed by this company as conductor on the second division, upon leaving the service of the company, failed to surrender: [here follows a description of the tickets described above]. If any of the tickets described above are presented for transportation, you must decline to honor them; if possible lift tickets and send them to General Passenger Agent, with full particulars. Conductors of trains upon which sleeping-cars are operated will please instruct porters fully in regard to the outstanding sleeping-car tickets. W. A. Winburn, V. P. & T. M., J. C. Haile, G. P. A., F. J. Robinson, A. G. P. A." Copies of this bulletin were sent to many of the passenger conductors of the defendant, about 45 in number, and to some of its division superintendents in the county of Bibb, and to 5 or more conductors within that county. The circular was also posted by the defendant on what are known as its "bulletin boards" in its offices in the city of Macon, Atlanta, Savannah, and at other places where the defendant does business, and was allowed to remain in a public and conspicuous place for a period of 10 or more days. All employés of the defendant were required to examine this bulletin, and the office in which it was placed was open to and frequented by the public. In this manner the libelous matter was published where it was read by divers other persons besides the officers and employés of the defendant. Plaintiff is the Sheftall referred to in the bulletin, and the defendant intended thereby to charge him with having unlawfully disposed of the tickets referred to and appropriated the proceeds to his own use, and with being a dishonest person, defrauding the defendant by unlawfully selling its property which had been intrusted to his care; and the language of the bulletin was, in effect, a statement and intimation that the tickets had been unlawfully and fraudulently disposed of by the plaintiff, and was, in effect, a charge that he had been guilty of the crime of embezzlement or larceny after trust. The defendant filed an answer, in which it admitted that the circular was prepared by its officers and agents, but denied that it was published maliciously, or with any purpose to injure or defame the plaintiff, and also denied that it was published to the general public; and specially pleaded that the preparation of the bulletin and placing it in the hands of its passenger conductors was a communication which is privileged under the law, it being made by parties interested in a business, and pertaining to a matter connected with their interest, and being made with the bona fide intent to protect the company's interest, to persons interested in the same business, and without any malice either in its preparation or the manner of its publication. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff complains of the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

Marion W. Harris, Jno. R. Cooper, Jos. H. Hall, and Claude Estes, for plaintiff in error.

Hall & Wimberly, for defendant in error.

COBB J.

1-5. Statements made with the bona fide intent, on the part of the person making them, to protect his own interest in a matter...