Timmons v. News & Press, Inc.
Decision Date | 18 April 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 17418,17418 |
Citation | 103 S.E.2d 277,232 S.C. 639 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Harold TIMMONS, Appellant, v. The NEWS & PRESS, Inc., Respondent. |
Charles E. Smith, Florence, for appellant.
Paulling & James, Darlington, for respondent.
This appeal is from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Darlington County sustaining respondent's demurrer to appellant's amended complaint upon the grounds that the article published in respondent's newspaper was 'not libelous per se nor is it so by innuendo.'
The amended complaint, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
'2. That on or about April 25, 1957, plaintiff was engaged in a business as a merchant in Darlington, South Carolina, and was of good name, fame and credit as such.
'3. That on said day the defendant maliciously, wilfully, and recklessly intended to and did injure plaintiff in his said business by composing and publishing at Darlington, South Carolina, in the defendant's newspaper, the following false, defamatory, sensational, malicious, reckless and insinuating article matter, to wit:
'4. With this article and made a part of the aforementioned article was a picture of plaintiff's place of business with this caption:
'5. That the defendant was aware and had knowledge that the plaintiff's business was the only 'back lot' store in the city of Darlington. That the reference to the 'back lot' store in the aforementioned article was directed solely at the plaintiff's place of business maliciously, wilfully, recklessly and with the intent to and did damage his reputation, credit, and standing in the community.
'6. That as a result of this publication, the defendant has suffered not only loss of reputation but continuous harassment by telephone concerning the article by parties known and unknown.
'7. The article was intended and calculated to reflect shame and disgrace upon the plaintiff and did so. The article caused plaintiff to be subjected to hatred, ridicule and contempt by business associates, friends and members of his family.
'8. The defendant printed the article with the intention to impress upon the public that the plaintiff was operating a nuisance in the city of Darlington, that his store was patronized by habitual drunkards and drinkers of bay rum and the article aforementioned did so impress the public and business associates of the plaintiff. That as the result of the public being so impressed, the plaintiff's customers failed to come in the plaintiff's business, causing plaintiff to lose thousands of dollars of his profit, loss of business, loss of business associations and customers.
'9. The defendant printed the aforementioned article which was false, malicious and contained defamatory insinuations that plaintiff lacked moral turpitude by dealing bay rum as a beverage to the extent that his business was the center of a plague of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fredrich v. Dolgencorp, LLC
...of both defamatory and non-defamatory meaning, the jury determines which meaning was in fact conveyed. Timmons v. News & Press, Inc., 232 S.C. 639, 644, 103 S.E.2d 277, 280 (S.C. 1958). However, the court must first determine if such statement was privileged and it is the duty of the trial ......
-
Leask v. Robertson, 2:21-cv-2367-DCN
...reasonable import, in the plain and popular sense in which the average reader naturally understands them." Timmons v. News & Press, Inc., 232 S.C. 639, 103 S.E.2d 277, 280–81 (1958). In other words, there is a presumption of falsity but "no presumption of defamation." Id. at 281. As the cou......
-
Hampton v. Conso Products, Inc.
...as a positive assertion if it is false and malicious and the meaning is plain. Id. at 634 (quoting Timmons v. News and Press, Inc., 232 S.C. 639, 103 S.E.2d 277, 280 (1958)) (emphasis In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence that she does not require medical treat......
-
Kennedy v. Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. Two
...his role as a mentor in his church significantly decreased following the publication of the email. See Timmons v. News & Press, Inc. , 232 S.C. 639, 644, 103 S.E.2d 277, 280 (1958) ("[The] plaintiff may offer evidence of the surrounding circumstances from which defamatory meaning may be inf......