Southland Pub. Co. v. Sewell
Citation | 143 S.E.2d 428,111 Ga.App. 803 |
Decision Date | 27 May 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 41264,No. 1,41264,1 |
Parties | SOUTHLAND PUBLINSHING COMPANY v. C. E. SEWELL |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by the Court
The language employed in the alleged libelous publication was reasonably susceptible of a construction by the average reader which would render such publications libelous under the provisions of Code § 105-703; and under the allegations of the petition the determination of the question of whether or not the tendency of the alleged publications was to bring the plaintiff into hatred, contempt, or ridicule, was an issue of fact for the jury as it cannot be said as a matter of law that the alleged newspaper libel was not of and concerning the plaintiff.
Carl Earl Sewell filed suit against the Southland Publishing Company, publisher of a daily newspaper, to recover damages for the publication of an alleged newspaper libel of the plaintiff. The petition was predicated upon a series of articles published in the defendant's newspaper during the third week in July, 1963, the prinshed basis of the suit being an article published on the front page of the Sunday edition of July 14, 1963, and set forth as Exhibit A to the petition. This article was as follows:
'Activity on Increase
'LAW OFFICERS SEIZE $30,000 STOLEN CARS.
'By Tom Winfield, Times District Editor
'CUMMING--Area lawmen struck a hard blow at car thieves in Forsyth County Friday and confiscated close to $30,000 in stolen automobiles.
'Sheriff Loy Barnett found four 1963 model cars stripped in the northeast section of the county Friday morning.
'Barnett said he received a call early Friday morning from Mr. and Mrs. Mell Mashburn, who live in rural Forsyth County about five miles from the Hall County line.
'The cars represented a minimum $14,000 investments, Forsyth County Deputy Hoyt Burruss said.
store. 'He and his wife said,
'Lawmen called
'The cars found in the woods were from Fulton, Cherokee and Thomas Counties and one from Virginia.
'Finishing their work at Dr. Stone's place the lawmen drove to Cumming where they pulled a surprise raid on Smith & Sewell Garage.
'Here, Agent Cleghorn said they found four more automobiles: a 1963 Pontiac convertible, a 1963 Oldsmobile, a 1962 Chevrolet and a 1961 Chevrolet Corvair.
'No Charges
* * *'(Emphasis supplied.)
On July 16, 1963, an article set forth as Exhibit B to the petition, was published which read in part as follows: * * *'
The petition alleged that the statements in the articles complained of that a 'surprise raid' had been conducted on the Smith & Sewell Garage and certain automobiles 'thought to be stolen' had been impounded were libelous, defamatory, false and untrue; that no raid, surprise or otherwise, had been conducted on the Smith & Sewell Garage, and that the story of the alleged 'surprise raid' was a figment of the imagination of the writer of the story and the alleged quotation attributed to Agent R. J. Cleghorn in the article of July 14, 1963 that 'No charges were made in the raid, not yet, anyway,' was a malicious fabrication on the part of the writer as no such statement was made by Mr. Cleghorn.
The petition further alleged that the plaintiff was the co-owner of the Smith & Sewell Garage and that 'the divers citizens of Forsyth County, Georgia, knew petitioner, Carl E. Sewell to be the Sewell affiliated with the Smith & Sewell Garage, and as such the publication of said articles identified petitioner personally;' and that the plaintiff by means of the publication of the false and malicious libel had been greatly injured in his good name, reputation, fame and credit, and exposed to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, 'amongst all his neighbors, and other good and worthy citizens of said county and state and elsewhere, insomuch that divers of his neighbors and citizens to whom the innocence and integrity of the plaintiff in the premises are unknown, on account of the committing of the said grievances from thence hitherto suspected and believed, and still and do suspect and believe the said plaintiff to have been guilty of the larceny and stealing of automobiles and a surprise raid having been conducted upon the premises of the business of which petitioner is a coowner wherein stolen automobiles were found by said law officers and petitioner be a person guilty of said crime so falsely and maliciously charged upon him and imputed to him by the defendant, as aforesaid, and have by reason of the publications of said libel by the defendant, from thence hitherto wholly refused, and still do refuse to have any transaction, acquaintance or discourse with the said plaintiff as they did before the publication of said libel.'
The defendant's general and special demurrers to this petition were overruled and the exception is to that judlgment.
Wheeler, Robinson & Thompson, Emory F. Robinson, Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
Robert J. Reed, Darrell W. MacIntyre, Gainesville, for defendant in error.
1. This action is predicated upon an alleged newspaper libel which is defined by Code § 105-703 as: 'Any false and malicious defamation of another in any newspaper, magazine, or periodical, tending to injure the reputation of any individual and expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, shall constitute a newspaper libel, the publication of such libelous matter being essential to recovery.'
A publication coming within this definition is actionable without any averment of special damage to the plaintiff (Holmes v. Clisby, 118 Ga. 820, 822, 45 S.E. 684; Witham v. Atlanta Journal, 124 Ga. 688, 693, 53 S.E. 105, 4 L.R.A.,N.S., 977; Sheley v. Southeastern Newspapers, Inc., 87 Ga.App. 167, 73 S.E.2d 211; Davis v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 93 Ga.App. 633, 92 S.E.2d 619) or of actual malice on the part of the defendant. Code § 105-706; Horton v. Georgian Company, 175 Ga. 261(1), 165 S.E. 443. As stated in the Horton case in headnote 1, And as stated in the Witham case, supra, 124 Ga. at p. 693, 53 S.E. at p. 107: 'It is clearly apparent from the language now under consideration that the statement therein contained tended to injure the reputation of the plaintiff and to expose him to public hatred or contempt; and it was, therefore, actionable without any allegation of special damage arising therefrom.'
As a general rule the question of whether or not a particular publication is libelous, as well as whether the libelous matter was of and concerning the plaintiff, is a question of fact for determination by a jury. Horton v. Georgian Co., 175 Ga. 261(2), 165 S.E. 443, supra; Whitley...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayes v. Irwin
...to mean, but by the construction which would be placed upon it by the average and reasonable reader. Southland Publishing Co. v. Sewell, 111 Ga.App. 803, 143 S.E.2d 428 (1965). The loss of employment, income, or profits is categorized as special damage and is sufficient injury upon which to......
-
Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg
...Id. at 65, 392 S.E.2d 539 (emphasis added) (citing Weatherholt v. Howard, 143 Ga. 41, 84 S.E. 119 (1915); Southland Publishing Co. v. Sewell, 111 Ga.App. 803, 143 S.E.2d 428 (1965)). In Southland Publishing, the court held that fact that the defamatory publication in terms designated a cert......
-
Schiavone Const. Co. v. Time, Inc.
...name, it is possible that persons hearing the remarks would understand them to refer to plaintiff."); Southland Publishing Co. v. C.E. Sewell, 111 Ga.App. 803, 143 S.E.2d 428, 432 (1965) (citing cases). Cf., DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. v. A.F. of L. & C.I.O., 215 Cal.App.2d 560, 30 Cal.Rptr. 350 ......
-
Hood v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...of the libelous matter is essential to recovery." 2 Hardy v. Williamson, 86 Ga. 551, 12 S.E. 874 (1891); Southland Publishing Co. v. Sewell, 111 Ga.App. 803, 143 S.E.2d 428 (1965). 3 Ga.Code Ann. § 105-702 (1935). The statute describes slander as "imputing to another a crime punishable by l......