58 Ga. 64 | Ga. | 1877
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 he 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 he 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;
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 Inqui/rer 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 Tnquwer 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.
It does not matter when a party or its agent admits a thing to be true, even if it be on the day of the trial; so it be admitted, it may go to the jury as evidence; and an admission may be made by conduct as well as by words, as in this ease by changing the advertisement and promising to pay for it.
Did this corporation authorize its publication ? The jury say so, and the evidence authorized them so to say. Did the publication refer to this plaintiff? The jury say so, and again the evidence authorizes the verdict. We cannot, therefore, say that the verdict is against the law or the evidence; and we therefore affirm the judgment of the court below overruling the motion for a new trial.
There were some minor questions made by the record, but we do not think that any error was committed, either in the charge, or in respect to the testimony, which would require us to send the case back.
Judgment affirmed.