*1
give
weight and credit
should
jury
2. A
that the
itof
any part
defendant’s statement
to the
it deserves
truth,"
would be authorized
to be the
you
“that
believe
in the case
testimony
preference
the sworn
accept
is not reversible
be
truth”
believe it to
“provided you
given
respect to
instructions are
full
error, where
v.
Dowdell
statement.
given
defendant’s
effect to be
State,
310); Allen v.
(2)
S. E.
State,
Judgment Gardner, J., affirmed. concur. Rehearing denied July 6, 1960. 22,
Decided June Casey Thigpen, plaintiff in error. Solicitor, Hutcheson, A. contra.
Thomas INC. v GRAYSON. NEWS-PRESS, 38248. SAVANNAH Rehearing denied July 7,1960. June Decided *5 64
Stephens Gignilliat, Gignilliat, & H. plaintiff Thomas error. Wylly &
Lewis, Javetz, Lewis, Emanuel contra. Judge. provides: “Any Chief Code 105-703 false Felton, maga- and malicious defemation any of another in newspaper, injure or zine, in- periodical, tending reputation to the of any expose dividual public ridicule, and him hatred, contempt, to shall a newspaper libel, publication constitute the of such libel- matter being recovery.” ous to publishing essential com- pany contends that the per editorials are not libelous inse that they are fair comments of political on the works a candidate and that they charge cannot be construed to immoral or repre- hensible conduct on their face since no al- that innuendo is leged alleged special no case damages alleged. is since no are temptation While case expatiate subject this is a to on of the libel, it is to us a comparatively simple one. It to that seems us simple question the is: could each editorial been under- have average stood plaintiff the reader to the injure conduct to tend to reputation plaintiff as the of the expose public contempt him to hatred, or ridicule? Cases from jurisdictions other but interesting, we no need search precedents further than our own to find problems the answers to posed in this case. To the defendant, sustain contention the this court would have to hold as a matter of law that the words per used are not that se, they actionable that is, did not tend injure plaintiff’s to reputation. Mell v. Edge, App. the 68 Ga. (22 738). 314 S. This say E. court cannot as a matter lawof injure that the tend plaintiff’s reputa- editorials do not tion in average minds of the reader the editorials. What the reader understood the editorials to mean, is this Augusta Evening jury question. News v. Radford, 494 91 Ga. (17 E. 44 612, 533, Rep. S. L. R. A. Am. St. 53); Horton v. Georgia (165 E. Co., 175 Ga. S. 443); Atlanta Journal (60 Doyal, App. Co. v. 82 Ga. E. S. 2d 802); Yelle v. Publishing Cowles R. Co., 53 A. L. and annotation fol- Telegraph Davis v. Macon lowing; Publishing Co., 93 Ga. App. E. 2d S. As to the first this editorial, court say of law that cannot as matter not Gray- did accuse Mr. making promise son well false Governor people county bridge pur- to obtain the for the sole of Chatham legislature. pose promoting Grayson’s campaign Mr. *6 As, it is doubtful whether it in and of to the editorial second Gray- injure materially itself could be understood to tend to Mr. reputation in with we but connection the first editorial son’s jury question charge think it is a whether that obtain- the the ing bridge political cronyism of the to tends to be was due injurious reputation by repetition a of first plaintiff’s to the alleged. if in such As to charge, the first was fact a as it question jury the third editorial a there is whether in, charged Grayson participating flagrant Mr. with of the waste money. than $120,000 public more The additional contention of of the fair on solely defendant that the editorials are comment political the part works and conduct on of for the a candidate office they injure repu- and that to by jury cannot be said a the plaintiff tation of the an individual not well taken. The Supreme of in Court this State has held effect that fact that the in politics humanity. one is not does remove his Often com- upon political imputes ment one’s actions lack of immorality or integrity to the individual. It is false philosophy to frame one code of character morals, person and for integrity the who seeks public and politics. office another those outside of Decent self-respecting encouraged and public citizens should be seek to rather than by office be deterred philosophy. false The err overruling general court did not in the demurrer to the petition.
Judgment Bell, J., concurs. Nichols, J., concurs affirmed. specially. Judge, concurring specialy. agree While I ev-
Nichols, erything that is in majority opinion said the my colleagues of published with reference to first the two editorials as the by agree defendant in this I cannot with the conclusion and in holding majority opinion the with reference to the third edi- torial under consideration this Code pro- case. 26-4201 “Any vides: persons conspire two or more who agree shall or defraud, cheat, illegally or obtain from State, any county the or public or thereof, any county from officer of or State, any this exercising any such of- person the duties any or thereof, or county, or under property belonging to the State fice, any pun- such, shall said be possession officers control penitentiary less labor in the for not by imprisonment and ished exhibit third years.” editorial, than nor than 10 two more proper conduct plaintiff a lack imputes to the “C”, only not personal part corrupt, selfish, in that he was actuated on his charging that, language than used political motives, but more inducing participating with State officials him with $120,000” public “flagrant funds, constituted waste of charging him with 26-4201, supra, to amounted under section aof crime. commission the edi- doings acts and argued that the
Although might be and which having committed, plaintiff with charges torial sup- might not sufficient be for this law suit form the basis *7 26-4201, supra, grand jury under by port indictment, an require nor contemplate libel does not law of nevertheless the necessary an indict- for ingredients that technical same newspaper in a article present to be by grand jury, ment, in this where, per se, be libelous order same to plaintiff with charges editorial language employed in the charge a per libel It is se to statute. having violated criminal App. Doyal, 82 Atlanta Journal Co. v. Ga. person awith crime. Publishing Telegraph Co., Macon (60 802); Davis v. E. 2d S. (92 Yelle 46 Wash. 619); Cowles, v. S. E. App. 633 93 Ga. 1). (278 A. R. 2d L. 2d 105 P. pub- that the third editorial opinion I am of the
Accordingly, per se. was libelous lished the defendant v. RYALS. COMPANY 38342. LONG CONSTRUCTION contributory Questions negligence, Judge. 1. Carlisle, neg and whose proximate cause, of cause negligence, proximate negligence constitutes the cause ligence or of what cases, indisputable palpable except plain, an injury are, Ry. Montgomery Co., v. Southern solely jury. (51 Harvey Zell, 87 Ga. (Id) 66); v. S. E. 2d App. Ga. allegations Unless the (1a) S. E. 2d App. 280,