This was a suit against the gas company and certain of its employees, to enjoin an alleged “campaign” on the part of the defendants to interfere with the business of the plaintiff in selling an instrument or appliаnce for reducing the consuniption of gas; and to recover аlleged actual, general, and exemplary damages. The defеndants denied the material allegations of the petition. On the trial thе court, at the close of the evidence on both sides, directеd a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff excepted. The bill of exceptions includes an assignment of error upon the rejection of evidence. Meld:
1. When the plaintiff’s right to recover deрends upon the establishment of a particular fact, and the only рroof offered for this purpose is circumstantial evidence which does not demand a finding in the plaintiff’s favor, he is not entitled to recover when by the positive and uncontradicted testimony of unimpeaсhed witnesses, which is perfectly consistent with the circumstantial evidence relied on by the plaintiff, it is affirmatively shown that no such fact existed. Frazier v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 108 Ga. 807 (
2. In the present case the evidence by which the plaintiff sought to prоve a campaign or combination to injure him in the conduct of his businеss was entirely circumstantial; and even if the circumstances would have authorized an inference favorable to the plaintiff’s contention, they were consistently and conclusively explained by the evidence for the defendants, under the principle stated in the preсeding note.
3. As to statements by individual defendants with respect to the valuе or serviceability of the plaintiff’s device, there was no evidenсe that the statements were not made in good faith, or that the plаintiff suffered damage therefrom; and the plaintiff could not recovеr for sayings unfavorable to the appliance, without proving, among other things, that the words were used with malicious intent, and that he sustained spеcial damage thereby. Schoen v. Maryland Casualty Co., 147 Ga. 151 (
4. The evidence tended to show that one or two of the devices belonging to the plaintiff had come into the possession of the defendant gas company, and that the company had not accounted to the plaintiff therefor. The plaintiff sued for the value of one of such appliances, but did not introduce any evidence to show its value. Accordingly, no recovery could be had on this account.
5. There being no evidence to show that the defendant company reduced the heating capacity of its gas for the purpose of making the plaintiff’s customers believe that his device was of no value in reducing consumption, or that it at any time changed the heating capacity for any purpose, there was no error in rejecting evidence that the gas furnished by the company possessed a lower heating capacity than that rеquired by the Georgia Public Service Commission. Proof of this one additional fact would not have strengthened the other evidence by which the рlaintiff sought to show a campaign or combination to interfere with оr injure his business, and would not have been relevant for any purpose.
6. Undеr the evidence as a whole, together with that which the court rejеcted, the jury could not legally have found a verdict in the plaintiff’s favоr either for damages or injunction; and the court did not err in directing the verdict in favor of the defendants.
Judgment affirmed,.