LEDGER-ENQUIRER COMPANY v. GRIMES., 214 Ga. 422, 105 S.E.2.d 229

Supreme Court of Georgia

Status: ARGUED

Docket Number: 20145

Parts: ALMAND, Justice.

Linked as:

Summary

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia -- 97 Ga. App. 595 (103 S. E. 2d 616).

Summary

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia -- 97 Ga. App. 595 (103 S. E. 2d 616).

Text

Fort & Williams, James H. Fort, Al Williams, contra.Foley, Chappell, Kelly & Champion, for plaintiff in error.

In an action for damages for a newspaper libel, wherein the headline of the publication states that "Two Men Bound to Higher Court in Auto Theft," and the article below the headline relates to the plaintiffs being injured in an automobile accident and taken to a hospital and from reading the headline and the article together there is no ambiguity therein, and there being no connection between the alleged libelous publication and the plaintiffs, either directly or by way of colloquium -- the trial court properly sustained the general demurrers to the plaintiffs' petitions, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the orders of the trial court.

Carlton Brown and Al Grimes filed separate suits against the Ledger-Enquirer Company, publisher of a newspaper, wherein each sought the recovery of damages growing out of the publication in its newspaper of the following item:

"TWO MEN BOUND TO HIGHER COURT IN AUTO THEFT"

Lumpkin, Ga. Dec. 5 -- Carlton Brown, a Lumpkin lawyer, and Al Grimes, employed at the Singer Co., were injured when the car in which they were riding overturned near the Stewart-Quitman County line on State Highway 27 Sunday.

It was alleged that the words in the headline of the article referred to the plaintiffs and implied and conveyed by direct charges and insinuation, and was so understood by the readers of the newspaper, that the plaintiffs were "falsely charged" with stealing an automobile, a crime constituting a felony. The defendant filed its general demurrer in both cases, one of the grounds of the demurrer being that the allegations of the petitions affirmatively showed that the writing complained of was not libelous of the plaintiffs. The demurrers were sustained and the suits dismissed. These orders on review by the Court of Appeals were reversed. Brown v. Ledger-Enquirer Co., 97 Ga. App. 595 (103 S. E. 2d 616). That court, in considering and deciding the two cases in one opinion, held that, where a newspaper headline charges two unnamed persons with a crime and the body of the publication relates to an event involving two named persons, a jury question is presented as to whether the persons named in the body of the article were libelously charged with the crime mentioned in the headline. We granted a writ of certiorari.

The only question presented for our consideration is whether the two unnamed persons charged with a crime in the headline may be identified as the two plaintiffs named in the innocuous article that follows, so as to impute the commission of a crime to them. The headline is a part of the article and must be construed together with it in deciding whether the article refers to or identifies the two persons against whom the libel is directed. Witham v. Atlanta Journal, 211 Ga. 44 (84 S. E. 2d 9). In Commercial Publishing Co. v. Smith, 149 Fed. 704, it was said: "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." The above quotation was quoted with approval in Constitution Publishing Co. v. Andrews, 95 Ga. App. 241, 242 (97 S. E. 2d 520). See Restatement of the Law of Torts, p. 150, 564 (b) and p. 304, 614. Where there is no ambiguity in the words used in the article, the question whether the plaintiff was the person defamed is one of law. Hubbard v. Allyn, 200 Mass. 166 (86 N. E. 356).

The petitions in these cases contain no allegations by way of colloquium or innuendo. Whether the publication is libelous of and identifies the plaintiffs as the persons libeled, depends upon the construction of the publication unaided by the allegations that the published words referred to them. Witham v. Atlanta Journal, 124 Ga. 688, supra. The headline of the published article informs the reader that two unnamed men have been bound to a "higher court in auto theft." The body of the article relates to an automobile accident in which the plaintiffs "were injured when the car in which they were riding overturned near the Stewart-Quitman county line on State Highway 27 Sunday," and states that they were taken to a hospital in Eufaula, Alabama, and gives a description of their injuries. The article relates to an event entirely different and is in no way connected with the headlines. Neither the headlines nor the body is ambiguous. "It is not enough, however, that the defamatory matter be actually understood as intended to refer to the plaintiff; such interpretation must be reasonable in the light of all the circumstances." Restatement of the Law of Torts, p. 150, 564 (b). To illustrate how unconnected the event related in the headlines is to the body of the article, suppose a newspaper publishes a news article with the headline, "Two Men Injured In Auto Accident Carried To Hospital," and the article is an account of the arrest of A and B for the theft of an automobile and their being bound over to a higher court. It is obvious that the body of the article does not identify A and B as being the two unnamed men in the headline who were injured in the automobile accident. We agree with the conclusion drawn by the trial judge, in his order sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the petitions, when he said: "The words alleged to be libelous appear only in the headline of the article. The headline does not identify the plaintiff in any manner whatever. The article itself must be read in order to identify the plaintiff, and upon reading the article it is obvious that the headline and the remainder of the article have no relationship one with the other. In its entirety, the article conveyed to the mind of the reader the fact that the auto theft referred to in the headline was not imputed to the plaintiff, and . . . this is the 'only construction by the reader, of which the article was reasonably susceptible.' The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the orders of the trial court in these two cases, and its judgment must be and is

Reversed. All the Justices concur, except Candler, J., who dissents.

1958