50 Ga. App. 116 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1934
Mrs. J. E. Andrews sued the Constitution Publishing Company, alleging the publication of a libel against her. The ease is before this court on exceptions to the order overruling the general demurrer to the petition. The petition alleged: that during the month of November, 1929, the Fulton county grand jury instituted a diligent investigation into the municipal affairs of the City of Atlanta, the investigation culminating in the indictment of numerous officials of the City of Atlanta alleged to be guilty of bribery; that on March 1, 1930, numerous true bills were returned against various city officials; that the defendant, through its daily paper, the Atlanta Constitution, devoted much space to a report of the proceedings of the investigations, and that on March 2, 1930, on its front page were exhibited photographs of such city officials as had been indicted. By amendment a photostat copy of said page was attached to the petition, together with pictures of the plaintiff and one other woman. At the top of these pictures, in large type and in what are commonly known as headlines, was the following: “City officials indicted by the grand jury Saturday. Under ■ each individual picture was the name of the person indicted and the position occupied. Under the plaintiff’s picture was, “Mrs. J. E. Andrews, Civic Worker.” Under the photographs as a whole was the following: “Photographs of City Officials and others indicted in the investigation by the Fulton
“A publication claimed to be defamatory must be read and construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. So the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construed together, and its meaning and signification thus determined. When thus read, if its meaning is so unambiguous as to reasonably bear but one interpretation, it is for the judge to say whether that signification is defamatory or not. If, upon the other hand, it is capable of two meanings, one of which would be libelous and actionable and the other not, it is for the jury to say, under all the circumstances surrounding its publication, including extraneous facts admissible in evidence, which of the two meanings would be attributed to it by those to whom it is addressed or by whom it may be read.” Commercial Publishing Co. v. Smith, 149 Fed. 704. See also Horton v. Georgian Co., 175 Ga. 262 (165 S. E. 443); Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner, 250 U. S. 290 (39 Sup. Ct. 448, 63 L. ed. 987). As is said in 36 C. J.
Upon a reading of the article in question there is no suggestion by innuendo or otherwise when all the publication attached to the petition is considered that goes to show that the plaintiff in this case was a city official who was indicted for fraud and corruption. The pictures show the designation and office of each of those indicted. The plaintiff in this case is shown by the article and picture to be a civic worker. The article explanatory thereof and in immediate context therewith shows that the plaintiff was indicted in connection with an alleged libelous publication with reference to Solicitor-General John A. Boykin, which article demanded that he be removed from office during the graft investigation. All of these statements are admittedly true, and no inference can be drawn from the article as a whole which makes it and the pictures in connection therewith libelous. The article further explains, in immediate connection with that part complained of, in what way and in what connection the plaintiff was indicted, and this the petition admits to be true. Under the allegations of the petition and the
Judgment reversed.