The Howe Mach. Co. v. Souder

• Decision Date: 01 March 1877
• Citation: 58 Ga. 65
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: The Howe Machine Company, plaintiff in error. v. C. C. Souder, defendant in error.

58 Ga. 65

The Howe Machine Company, plaintiff in error. v. C. C. Souder, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January. Term, 1877.)

Page 65 Libel. Evidence. Practice in the Supreme Court. Corporations. Principal and Agents. Before Judge Crawford.

Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1876.

*Reported in the opinion.

Hilliard & Russedl, for plaintiff in error.

Blandford & Garrard; J. F. Pou; W. F. Williams, for defendant.

Jackson, Judge.

Souder sued the Howe Machine Company on the following publication, which appeared in the Columbus Inquirer of August 7th, 1874:

"IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.—Having had in our employ an agent that we have discovered to be simply a diminutively insignificant and contemptuously unreliable, indolent and dishonest fellow, through whom an impression has become current that we are about discontinuing our business in Columbus, we desire to say that, notwithstanding any and all such representations that may be or may have been made, we are determined to make our machine more prominently known than ever."

Defendant pleaded the general issue.

On the trial of the case, the jury found for the plaintiff $1,500.00; the defendant moved for a new trial on various grounds; the court below overruled the motion; defendant excepted, and the refusal to grant the new trial is the error complained of.

The plaintiff proved by Reeves, who had been the agent of the company before Souder came to Columbus, that he was directed by the company to turn over the effects to Souder as his successor, and that he did so. The company was situated in New York, its business was to sell sewing machines, it had a distributing office for the south in Atlanta; Scarrett was the agent in Atlanta; he, saw the publication in the Inquirer in respect to Souder. Souder had been discharged and witness had again taken charge in his place; he thought the advertisement referred to Souder, because he was the last accredited agent of the company in Columbus. They knew nothing of the Howe Machine Company beyond Atlanta; acted and communicated through that office; received his appointment through the Atlanta office, as did Souder; *knew that Jones was an agent of the company. Souder was a small man, and said he had telegraphed to Atlanta that the Howe Machine Company was about closed up in Columbus. This telegram was sent to Bell, and published in the Herald. Bell was in a great controversy with Scarrett about the relative merits of the "Howe" and the "Domestic;" witness thought, therefore, that the libel referred to Souder.

Witness was interrogated about the character of Souder, but the court rejected the evidence.

Howell testified that a man by the name of Jones, representing himself as the agent of the Howe Machine Company, came to the Inquirer office and had the advertisement of 7th of August changed.

Clark swore that Jones said he was sorry he could not pay a draft for the libel advertisement then, as he had no money of the company, but would pay it out of the first he got from the company.

The verdict and judgment of a former jury finding upon an issue made, that Jones was an agent of the Howe Machine Company, was put in evidence by the plaintiff.

It appeared from the books of the Inquirer office, that the advertisement sued on as a libel was charged to the Howe Machine Company. The grounds for the new trial insisted upon before us, when analyzed, may be reduced to four or five, although in the record they are twenty in number.

1. The first that we shall mention, is the admission by the court of the opinion of Reeves, that he thought the libelous advertisement referred to Souder. We think this evidence ought to have been admitted. Reeves gave his reasons for so thinking, and his opinion on such a subject, with the reasons therefor, is evidence to be considered by the jury. Its weight is to be determined by them in view of the reasons given. Certainly it is admissible to aggravate damages. The more people who, upon reading an...