Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926

Watkins v. Record Publishing Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 13, 1926 · Cothran, Messrs, Watts, Beease, Stabler, Purdy, Chiee, Gary

133 S.E. 100; 134 S.C. 470; 1926 S.C. LEXIS 58 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. Ashley C. Tobias, Jr. , and C.N. Sapp , for appellant, cite: Substantial truth of publication complete defense to action for libel: 16 S.C. 435 ; 90 S.W. 1081; 23 S.W. 591; 43 N.W., 43; 110 P., 957 ; 3 Bing (N.C.), 759; Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 766. Proof of plea of justification of libel raises question for jury: 68 S.W., 665; 43 N.W., 43; Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 766 and 804. Testimony on plea of justification of libel: 52 P., 150. Rule of damages in action for libel: 23 S.E., 423; 17 R.C.L., 423, 429 and 438. Whether publication is proximate cause of injury is question for jury: 129 S.E., 428 ; 101 S.C. 256 ; 99 Ill. App. 8 . Messrs. D.W. Robinson and D.W. Robinson, Jr. , for respondent, cite: Publication alleging unfitness for business actionable per se: 99 S.C. 438 ; 83 S.E., 1089 ; 93 S.C. 475 ; 77 S.E., 54 ; 1 McM., 16; Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 7, 155 and 170; 17 R.C.L., 294; 71 Tex., 645 ; 9 S.W. 860 ; 91 N.Y., 83 . Whether publication libelous per se question for Court: 76 S.C. 510 ; 57 S.E., 478 . In case of publication libelous per se malice and general damages presumed: 71 S.C. 116 ; 50 S.E., 637 ; Cheves, 17; 1 N. McC., 290. General damages: 117 S.C. 236 ; 109 S.E., 111 ; 116 S.C. 216 ; 107 S.E., 925 ; 113 S.C. 508 ; 101 S.E., 841 ; 74 S.C. 188 ; 54 S.E., 206 . No averment of special damages necessary: Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 843. Justification of libel must be broad as the charge: Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 766. Failure to sustain plea of justification considered in aggravation of damages: 21 S.C. 345 ; 16 S.C. 441 . Qualified privilege in publication of libelous matter: 115 S.C. 77 ; 106 S.E., 855 ; 99 S.C. 442 ;; Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 416, 516, 520, 521, 522 and 534; 17 R. C.L., 352. Qualified privilege destroyed by malice: 119 S.C. 241 ; 112 S.E., 110 ; 30 L.R.A. (N.S.), 204; 128 S.W., 878; 24 L.R.A., 598; 68 A., 566 ; Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 382; 12 L.R.A. (N.S.), 91, note. Good intentions in publication of libel go in mitigation of damages: 71 S.C. 119 ; 50 S.E., 637 ; 21 S.C. 345 . Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 301 and 243. Evidence of malice in publication of libelous matter: 123 S.C. 323 ; 116 S.E., 271 ; 119 S.C. 242 ; 112 S.E., 110 ; 97 S.C. 241 ; 81 S.E., 633 ; 95 S.C. 93 ; 78 S.C. 536 ; 2 McC., 288; 10 R.C.L., 838; 17 R.C.L., 327; Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 318 and 333. Error in submitting question of punitive damages to jury cured by failure to find punitive damages: 105 S.C. 484 ; 90 S.E., 188 . Charge of Court to be taken as a whole: 116 S.C. 47 ; 106 S.E., 775 ; 114 S.C. 123 ; 103 S.E., 479 ; 98 S.C. 262 ; 82 S.E., 414 . Loss of profits may be considered in estimating damages: 128 S.C. 344 ; 122 S.E., 858 ; 114 S.C. 533 ; 58 S.C. 373 ; 36 S.E., 703 ; Newell on Libel Slander, 4th Ed., 844.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

Action for damages on account of an alleged libelous article published in the defendant’s newspaper, a copy of which will be incorporated in the report of the case. The circumstances connected with the publication are detailed in the case of Miles v. Record Co., 133 S. E., 99, heard at the same term of this Court, reference to which is made. The defendant admitted the publication and sought justification in its truth. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to establish his claim for damages; the defendant, its claim of justification. At the close of all the evidence, his Honor, the Circuit Judge, directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, *474 leaving the amount of damages to be determined by the jury. The verdict was for $6,000, which upon motion for new trial was reduced, by an order nisi and remission by the plaintiff, to $4,000. The defendant has appealed.

There were two questions of fact, as to which the defendant offered evidence, which should have been left to the determination of the jury: (1) Whether the damages suffered by the plaintiff resulted from the publication, or from other matters upon which there was evidence; (2) whether the defendant’s plea of justification had been sustained. There was error, therefore, in the direction of a verdict.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the case be remanded to that Court for a new trial.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Beease and Stabler and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur. Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary did not participate.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.