Appeal
from city court of Gadsden; John H. Disque, Judge.
Action
by Thomas J. Wofford, Jr., against W. M. Meeks and others.
From a judgment sustaining defendants' motion to amend
the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
This
action was brought by the appellant, Thomas J. Wofford, Jr.
against W. M. Meeks and W. P. Johnson, constituting the firm
of Meeks & Johnson, a partnership. The complaint contained
two counts. These counts are as follows: (the portions of
said counts which are within the parentheses being the parts
of each of said counts which the defendants moved to strike
from the counts, respectively): "The plaintiff claims of
the defendants five thousand dollars damages, for that the
defendants, at and prior to the grievances herein complained
of (wrongfully, willfully, or maliciously intending to injure
plaintiff in his good name and standing as a citizen among hs
neighbors, and other citizens of the county and state, and to
bring plaintiff under suspicion, and cause the opinion and
belief to be generated and entertained that plaintiff was
dishonest, corrupt, and unworthy of trust or confidence by
his neighbors, his fellow citizens, and the community at
large, did, on the 3d day of July, 1894, at Gadsden, Etowah
county, Ala., publish, or cause to be published, and
circulated, or caused to be circulated, a false, untruthful
scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning
plaintiff, in a newspaper called Gadsden Times-News, and of
which newspaper defendants were, at the time of the
grievances herein complained of, the proprietors, editors
and publishers, which said libel is in the following words
and figures to wit:) 'Wholesale Robbery-The Way Etowah
County Taxpayers' Money Goes. (Communicated.) Editors
Times & News: As a great deal is being said by the Third
Partyites concerning the finances of Etowah county, I wish to
tell the readers of the paper what I know to be facts, and
can be proven. In the fall of 1893, a bridge was built over
Dry Creek, at the old Whorton place on the Gilbert Ferry
road, at a cost of $3,900, where the water never gets too
high to cross for more than six hours at a time after a hard
rain. I have been reliably informed that this road had not
been worked in six or eight years. At any rate, the
commissioners had to pay a man $1,000 to build an approach to
the bridge at each end; as there were no hands on the road to
do the work, only a few who would support the ticket for the
present term. Another economical job was at the McCartney
bridge, where there was a $1,500 job. The Coosa Furnace
didn't like to pull up the abutments, because they were
left too steep by the road hands; so they took the old rotten
bridge that was thrown away and put it on each end of the
bridge, and it is not much worse, but it is not the business
of the commissioners. A still more economical job was done at
the Sutton bridge, where there was a small job to be done.
The bidders and one commissioner met, and two men were all
that would bid. One of them bid $2.50 and the other $5.00
and the man that bid $5.00 got the job. This makes me think
of letting out of the paupers. One man bid $12.00 per month
and another got them at $30.00 per month, and a raise to
$45.00 per month. The Third Partyites explain this by saying
that Mr. H.'s bid was inconsistent, as he could not care
for them at that price. But I rather think that Mr. G. had
not done as much party service as the other man had. This and
various other circumstances of like character is the reason
that the county warrants are only worth 50 cents on the
dollar now.' Plaintiff avers that prior to, and at the
time of, the said libelous publication, and ever since the
general election in August, 1892, he was and has been a
member of and commissioner of the court of county
commissioners of Etowah county, Ala., and was elected as the
candidate of the Third Party at said election in 1892 as such
commissioner; and prior to, and at the time of, said libelous
publication, plaintiff was a candidate of the Third Party for
re-election to said office of commissioner, as aforesaid, at
the then approaching election, to be held on the 6th August
1894; and plaintiff was the only member of the said court of
county commissioners that stood for re-election at said
general election. Plaintiff avers that said defendants were
very much opposed to plaintiff's re-election, and desired
his defeat at said election in August, 1894. (Plaintiff avers
that the said defendants intended by the publication of such
libelous matter, and also plaintiff avers that the language,
words, and figures used in said libelous publication show,
that the unlawful, willful, or malicious intention and
purpose of said defendants was to create the belief and
understanding among the people of the county and of the
state, and among the friends and neighbors of the plaintiff,
and to hold up plaintiff to shame and disgrace as being a
dishonest man, a corrupt man, and one that is unworthy
confidence and trust, and unfaithful to trust and confidence.
Plaintiff avers that the malicious intention of such
defendants in the publication of such malicious libel was to
hold up the plaintiff to the people and voters of the county,
and to the friends and neighbors of plaintiff, as unworthy
and unfaithful as a county commissioner; that plaintiff as
such commissioner had acted unlawfully and intentionally
dishonest and corrupt in the discharge of the duties of said
office; that plaintiff used the power and authority of said
office corruptly, dishonestly, and unlawfully, to aid his
party friends and to secure votes for plaintiff's
re-election as such commissioner, by engagements and
performance of unnecessary public works in Etowah county, and
a profitless and extravagant use of the money of the
taxpayers of the county, to their loss and injury as to
amount to wholesale robbery of said taxpayers and people; and
that plaintiff was unworthy of trust and confidence of the
people of the county as a county commissioner, because
plaintiff was corrupt, dishonest, and unfaithful in the
discharge of the duties of such office.) Plaintiff avers that
by means of the wrongs and grievances aforementioned
committed by the defendants to plaintiff, he has been greatly
damaged, and injured to the amount of $5,000; hence this
suit. 2. The plaintiff claims of the defendants $5,000
damages for falsely and maliciously publishing of and
concerning him, in a newspaper called the Gadsden Times-News,
published at Gadsden, Ala., by the defendants, and of which
the defendants were the editors and proprietors, the
following matter (with intent to defame plaintiff), viz.:
[Here follows publication.] Plaintiff avers that the
defendants made publication of said libel on 3d July, 1894.
Plaintiff avers that prior to, and at the time of, the said
libelous publication, and ever since the general election, in
August, 1892, he was, and has been ever since, a member of
the court of county commissioners of Etowah county, and was
elected as the candidate of the Third Party at said election
in 1892, as such commissioner, and prior to, and at the time
of, said libelous publication, plaintiff was a candidate of
the Third Party for re-election to said office of
commissioner as aforesaid at the then approaching general
election, to be held on the 6th August, 1894, and plaintiff
was the only member of the said court of county commissioners
that stood for re-election at said election. Plaintiff avers
that said defendants were very much opposed to
plaintiff's re-election and desired his defeat at said
election in 1894. Plaintiff avers that by means of the wrongs
and grievances aforementioned, committed by defendants to
plaintiff, he has been greatly damaged, and...
