{ "id": 1470209, "name": "West Memphis News, Inc. v. Bond", "name_abbreviation": "West Memphis News, Inc. v. Bond", "decision_date": "1947-12-15", "docket_number": "4-8345", "first_page": "514", "last_page": "525", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "212 Ark. 514" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "206 S.W.2d 449" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "208 Ark. 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1478578 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/208/0265-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 Ark. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1473239 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/211/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S. W. 10471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 S. W. 1047", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ark. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1543573 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/95/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 Am. St. Rep. 1078", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 S. W. 1011", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "86 Ark. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1521551 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/86/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Am. St. Rep. 46", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 L. R. A. 937", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 S. W. 380", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505507 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S. W. 407", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ark. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1562570 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/118/0081-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1103, "char_count": 20520, "ocr_confidence": 0.494, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.05508487174348775 }, "sha256": "0ed1765d95c3b0d6e41e28eb9cf8f15d4217c3cb035e54c8089365dc0f1b47d5", "simhash": "1:d36c49b56bc4cfd2", "word_count": 3421 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:33.594173+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "West Memphis News, Inc. v. Bond." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Grieein Smith, Chief Justice.\nThe action was for damages resulting from libelous matter written by Paul and John G. Coughlin and printed in West Memphis News, a weekly publication they own. The cause was transferred from Crittenden to Craighead County on a change of venue requested by the defendants. The plaintiff, C. H. Bond (who is County Judge) asked for $10,000 to compensate actual and punitive damages. Prom a judgment for $500 in his favor the publishers have appealed.\nThe defendants, admitting responsibility for the editorials in question, sought threefold avoidance: (1) All reasonable efforts had been exerted to ascertain the facts, and the charges made were true. (2) Even if it could not be shown that the accusations were substantially correct, words actuall}7 used were not susceptible of the construction plaintiff placed upon them. (3) The plaintiff was not in fact injured in reputation or purse.\nC. H. \u201cCy\u201d Bond was a candidate in the primary election of August 1946, seeking the nomination for County Judge. He was opposed by an independent affiliated with tbe GI group. Bond\u2019s principal support came from tbe democratic organization with wbicb be bad for many years been affiliated. It is commonly conceded that he. was titular head of the organization. As such, and by reason of his personal popularity, Bond exercised a dominant influence in county politics. He is shown by the record to be aggressive, but not in a belligerent way. It was sought to show that opponents were penalized, and that power of the \u201cmachine\u201d was used against those who for a protracted period refused to align themselves with the group that had so long prevailed.\nInfluential members of the forces so recently mustered out with honorable discharges believed that through local mobilization and application of the vigor shown in their country\u2019s behalf they could establish a new political deal- \u2014 and, as they so enthusiastically expressed the plan, restore government to the people. Opposing this experiment there were those who wholeheartedly gave to Bond and his associates the full measure of their confidence. They steadfastly denied that subversive methods were employed, or that penalties were applied where loyalty was lacking.\nIt necessarily followed that in circumstances like these the opposing factions would wage bitter warfare. This they did.\nTwo Crittenden County newspapers featured in the controversies: the \u201cTimes,\u201d published by C. H. Brown, favoring Bond\u2019s group, the other \u2014 West Memphis News \u2014bearing allegiance to the GI cause. The News was purchased in March 1945 by the Coughlin Brothers. Although John G. registered for the draft at Trumann, Arkansas, yet when released from the Navy he went to Pensacola, Florida, where Paul was stationed. Together they went to West Memphis and shortly after March 8th, 1945, began publishing the News. Each of the brothers was familiar with proceedings had in Federal Court at Jonesboro wherein certain Crittenden County officers were charged with having conspired, in violation of Criminal Code Sec. 37, 18 U. S. C. A. Sec. 88, to commit an offense against the United States by depriving, under color of State law, certain persons of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Three were convicted- and judgments against them were affirmed when reviewed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.\nAccording to testimony given by the defendants, they had believed that the Federal Court trials had corrected the abuses charged by the United States, and were surprised to learn that some of those who had been accused were still.holding public office and exercising influence in party councils. Believing, as the publishers expressed it, that a deplorable situation required drastic treatment as an incident to reformation, they began the assault August 27 with an editorial entitled, \u201cOne Step Ahead of the \u2018G\u2019 Men\u201d. In the text, notice was given that \u201cWe will, for instance, show how Judge Bond has corrupted the county road program to his own financial betterment\u201d.\nAugust 30 the headline was, \u201cEvidence Enough to Convict Whole Gang\u201d. It was then said: \u201cThis is for you, Judge Bond, recognized leader of the corrupt remnant of the county gang whose shameless Nazi-like violations of civil liberties of countless American citizens brought a federal investigation, trials, convictions, and resulting bad nationwide publicity and disgrace to Crittenden County and the St\u00e1te of Arkansas. . . . Now you say [Coughlin Brothers] are afraid to come out in the open. . . . Well, wait and see! These ex-soldiers who fought for their country while you and your gang got rich allowing gambling dens and brothels to operate openly, by misuse of county funds to build roads on and to your own property, by cheating ignorant Negroes, and various other grafts\u201d.\nSeptember 13th the question was asked, \u201cIs It MudSlinging to.Print the Truth About Politicians Who Get Rich in Office 1 \u2019 \u2019 And then: \u2014 \u20181We print the undeniable fact that Judge Bond has used county funds to build roads for his own personal benefit, and for the benefit of machine supporters. . . .\u201d\nReferring specifically to Editor Brown of the competing newspaper] the following appeared October 15: \u201cShame on you, Mr. Brown! \u25a0 Your attempt to smear Dicky Sanders \u25a0 is a disgrace to our profession. Mr. Brown, you too may lmve some explaining to do in court, once the G-I\u2019s get their hands on the county\u2019s records. The least you can hope for is a civil suit to recover some of the money you have been handed by the County Judge under the guise of payment for \u2018printing and supplies\u2019 \u201d.\nOctober 18th it was asserted that the \u201cMachine [is] in Last Ditch Fight\u201d. The text supporting this headline was: \u201cGI\u2019s attacking forces establish beach-head. Denouncing Machine Rule, they fire point-blank at Crittenden\u2019s high command. Your outfit, and similar gangs, have occupied the courthouse for twenty years. And what have you done for the County? You have served for your own personal betterment, growing rich from exploitation of your offices. Worse than that, you have so corrupted the ballot by your vote-stealing judges and clerks that you have reduced the citizenship of this county to a state of political peonage. Your callous disregard for the principles of democratic government has caused great numbers of our citizens to refuse to vote, knowing that their vote against your gang would not be counted. We who have fought against European dictatorship, backed b}r other liberty-loving citizens, will on Y-C Day liberate this county from the shackles of Cy Bondage\u201d.\nJohn G. Coughlin, when asked as a witness what he meant when he published the editorial \u2018 \u2018 One Step Ahead of the \u2018G\u2019 Men\u201d, explained that the reference was not to gun-men. The intent, asserted this defendant, was to say that \u201cthey\u201d were still ahead of the Federal investigation, or making an attempt, \u201cso they wouldn\u2019t be getting into another mess like they did before\u201d.\nQuestion on cross examination: \u201cNow] under the heading, \u2018We will, for instance, show how Judge Bond has corrupted the county road program to his own financial betterment\u2019 \u2014 will you tell the jury what you meant by the word \u2018corrupt?\u2019\u201d Answer: \u201cTo start with, that wasn\u2019t the main part of the article. By the word \u2018corrupt\u2019 I meant he used it to his own advantage. I didn\u2019t mean to say he had broken any law, or anything else, and I didn\u2019t mean to say Judge Bond was one step ahead of the G-men because he corrupted the road program. I meant to show he had done it. Corrupt is a sort of general term. I think that when anything is being misused or mishandled it has been in a sense corrupted. . . . I meant he had used the road program wrong, and by wrong I meant he had used it to his own interest instead of the interest of everyone. For instance, if some one unfriendly to [Judge Bond] had owned Marland Swamp he wouldn\u2019t have seen any great necessity for building the roads. . . . [What I meant was] that as a county official he used his influence to see that roads were put where they would enhance the value of his land, and he did it\u201d. There was the later explanation that \u201cI did not say Judge Bond violated the law: I said he did something wrong\u201d.\n\u2022Regarding the publication of August 30th in which it was asserted enough of evidence was at hand \u201cto convict the whole gang\u201d, the witness said he was referring to a conviction in the eyes of the' public. There was no intent to allege the commission of a crime in a legal sense.\nQuestioned concerning the editorial, \u201cThis is for you, Judge Bond \u2014 recognized leader of the corrupt remnant of the county gang\u201d, Coughlin answered that he meant it. By the word \u201ccorrupt\u201d he intended to say to the public that there were gambling places, brothels and bootlegging in the county. These things, thought the witness, were corrupt \u201cin the worst meaning, and as leader of the gang doing it. I didn\u2019t say he was doing it at all\u201d. Pursuing the same line of interrogation, the question was asked: \u201cYou did mean to include Judge Bond in that gang?\u201d Answer: \u201cI have never said Judge Bond got any rake-off of any gambling places: I said he associated with, people who did. I didn\u2019t say he did it at all \u2014 that he took anything\u201d.\nWhen asked about the salutation, \u201cThis is for you, Judge Bond\u201d, and the subsequent charge that \u201cyou and your gang got rich allowing [the law to be violated and by] cheating ignorant Negroes, and various other grafts\u201d, the defendant replied, \u201cI was not saying Judge Bond cheated anybody\u201d.\nFinally, Coughlin was asked what his meaning was in asserting Jhat Bond\u2019s \u201coutfit and similar gangs\u201d had served officially for twenty years, \u201cgrowing rich from exploitation of their offices, . . . [and] worse than that, you have so corrupted the ballot by your vote-stealing judges and clerks, . . . \u201d etc. The answer was: \u201cI meant that in a machine county \u2014 especially in Crittenden county \u2014 an election is. determined by the judges and clerks. ... I did not refer to Judge- Bond especially, but the machine had been violating the State law in doing it\u201d.\nCoughlin first said he was referring to the \u201cmachine\u201d when the pledge was publicly made to liberate the county from the shackles of Bondage\u201d. He then said C. IT. Bond was not being \u201cespecially\u201d referred to. When a direct yes or no answer was demanded the witness denied that the plaintiff was intended or that the reference was to him. The term was used merely as a rallying slogan.\nThe evidence as abstracted covers 232 printed pages. Judge Bond denied that he had built roads to or near his\u2019 own property for the purpose of improving its facilities. Much of his land was in a neighborhood almost exclusively white, as contrasted with an average colored population of eighty per cent, for the county as a whole. For this reason roads had been built to accommodate the community as a whole. There was, of course, an incidental advantage, but it accrued bec\u00e1use of necessary road improvement to which the neighborhood was entitled. Other witnesses testified that dirt roads in various parts of the County were impassable during winter months and that work was' neglected because improvements would benefit Judge Bond\u2019s political enemies.\nThere was testimony that election boxes had been \u201cstuffed\u201d by the addition of ballots on behalf of registrants who were not present. Other irregularities were said to have occurred, but appellee was not connected with these transactions by any testimony. Witnesses favorable to Judge Bond thought his administration of road funds and distribution of betterments had been appropriate. Their summations were highly commendatory.\nIn their brief appellants seek refuge in their construction of the language used in the several publications, insisting that it does not, by any fair inference, constitute libelous castigation or accusation. There is no charge that Bond committed a crime. On the contrary, they contend, the assertion that Bond \u201ccorrupted the county road program to his own financial betterment\u201d is merely a statement that he \u201ccorrupted, or used, the county road program to his own financial betterment\u201d. The assertion that Bond was the recognized leader \u201cof the corrupt remnant of the county gang whose shameless Nazi-like violations of civil liberties \u2019 \u2019. brought on a Federal investigation and criminal convictions, was not actionable, it is insisted, \u201cfor the reason that it would constitute no crime or misdemeanor for Judge Bond to be a recognized leader of the remnant of that gang, [for] it is not alleged in said article that Judge Bond had anything to do with the gang\u201d. These expressions are fairly-representative of others dealing with the extenuating attitude taken by appellants.\nMr. Justice Hart, when writing the Court\u2019s opinion in Simonson v. Lovewell, 118 Ark. 81, 175 S. W. 407, said that matter published by Simonson in the Luxora Commonwealth of March 19, 1910, was actionable per se. In an article advocating the candidacy of. C. B. Hall for Sheriff of Mississippi County, Simonson attacked Hall\u2019s opponent, John A. Lovewell, who had formerly served as Sheriff. Simonson said that Lovewell \u201chas proven his utter inefficiency and unworthiness and has abused and forfeited every right he may have had to the support, confidence and respect of the people. . . . Lovewell is the worst retarding influence we have. . . . The most [his] supporters seem to be able to say for him is that he saved the poor people from [drainage] improvements and that he has been their friend, and How? By squandering and appropriating to his own use the thousands of dollars of the people\u2019s money that should have been turned into the treasury of the county. . . . In the case of the County vs. Lovewell, just tried in the Chancery Court, Lovewell made no defense that he had appropriated the county\u2019s funds as charged, but that he was saved from prosecution by the three years\u2019 statute of limitation and the Judge held only that . . . time was a bar to the prosecution. . . . The confidence man always poses as your friend and always will while getting his graft. ... It would be far more pleasant and infinitely to the credit of the county if such records as this had never been made, though such records and their maker, who is entitled to no screening or support, should be brought into the light and given their due, then buried forever, and newer and better men and records supplant them at the earliest opportunity\u201d.\nJudge Hart said: \u201cThe article.was libelous per se. Patton v. Cruce, 72 Ark. 421, 81 S. W. 380, 65 L. R. A. 937, 105 Am. St. Rep. 46; Murray v. Galbraith, 86 Ark. 50, 109 S. W. 1011, 126 Am. St. Rep. 1078; Murray v. Galbraith, 95 Ark. 199, 128 S. W. 1047. ...\u201d\nIn the Patton-Cruce case the defendant published the following: \u201cJohn Patton, who is mayor, announces in last week\u2019s Headlight that he will in the near future launch a first-class weekly newspaper in this city, to fill \u2018the long felt want\u2019, and that it will have a larger circulation than the \u2018Weeldy Bunghole Sucker\u2019 . . . He does not state whether or not he will backbite his friends and lay down with his enemies, or even whether he will tell secrets out of the lodge. There are many things he left off his prospectus that the public is intensely interested in, but then he is a rather peculiar individual, who can change friends and issues upon very short order\u201d.\nIt was alleged in the complaint that by this publication the defendant intended to falsely accuse Patton of being a secret slanderer and scandal monger, with betraying lodge secrets, and betraying his friends. In the Court\u2019s opinion Mr. Justice Riddick said that \u201cThis, if proved, was clearly libelous per se.\u201d\nIn the second Murray-Galbraith case (95 Ark. 199, 128 S. W. 10471 it was held that one who publishes a false article calling into question the character of another for probity will not be liable for exemplary damages, but only for compensatory damages, unless there 'was ill will against the person assailed or the publication indicated a wicked and abandoned disposition on the publisher\u2019s part; nor may one who publishes a false article impeaching another\u2019s integrity prove the circumstances for the purpose of mitigating or reducing the amount of compensatory damages, as the law implies malice from the publication of a libel and gives the party injured redress by way of compensation\u201d.\nThe statement by a mill manager that one from whom lumber was being purchased was \u201cshort-stacking in order to get more scale\u201d, or that he was \u201cstealing lumber scale\u201d, justified the jury in finding that the defendant was entitled to compensatory damages. Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co. v. White, 211 Ark. 362, 200 S. W. 2d 789.\nIn the instant case the jury did not allow exemplary damages. It is apparent that the triers of fact found, generally, that the charges were not sustained, but that they were made in the heat of a partisan or political campaign, and in circumstances where the parties directly concerned are apt to magnify and treat as important things that might otherwise be disregarded. It is a time when charges and countercharges find easy expression; when rival factions accept uncertain rumor as confirmation strong as proof of holy writ. But, irrespective of the impulse to accuse, under our system of government there are excesses beyond which one may not go without assuming the responsibility of compensation.\nIt was for the jury to say whether the publishers in asserting they had evidence enough to convict the \u201cwhole gang\u201d, were referring to criminal conviction or a conviction at the bar of public opinion. Likewise, when they denominated Judge Bond as leader of the corrupt remnant of the county gang \u2014 a gang that had brought federal investigations, convictions, wide publicity, and disgrace. to the County and State, the ordinary implications could not be brushed aside with an explanation that no offense was intended. There was the further charge that \u201cYou and your gang got rich allowing gambling dens and brothels to operate openly\u201d. The implication is that in \u201callowing\u201d the law violations complained of, these leaders were corrupted, for it is said that they got rich. Cheating, ordinarily, is a crime. When the defendants publicly proclaimed that the \u201cgang\u201d had cheated ignorant Negroes, and' had [engaged in] various other grafts \u2014 in consequence of which they had grown rich \u2014 no construction other than a charge of dishonesty could attach, and the words were actionable per se. Their truth was the only defense. The jury chose to believe that the defamatory phrases did not find support in the conduct established.\nAppellants think they were prejudiced by the Court\u2019s refusal to give their requested Instructions Nos. 3 and 4. No. 3 would have restricted the jury to consideration of editorials in which Judge Bond was directly named. The Court properly rejected it. Implications \u2014 that is, whether Judge Bond was or was not the object of attack \u2014 were for the jury\u2019s determination. This is true because it is a question of fact whether a reasonable person, while reading the publications, would have been justified in believing Judge Bond was being accused.\nRequested Instruction No. 4 would have told the jury to find for the defendants if it determined that the editorial of August. 27th did not misstate conditions when it asserted Judge Bond' had corrupted the county road program to his own financial betterment. Effect would have been to peremptorily instruct as to the other charges, and confine the jury\u2019s consideration to the single editorial. This, of course, could not be done, since even stronger language was found in some of the other publications.\nThe verdict was signed by ten of the jurors, and it expressly found that the award was for compensation.\nThe record is free of prejudicial errors, and the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.\nIncluded in the complaint and named as defendants were West Memphis News, Inc., Arkansas Publishing Company, Inc., and the two Coughlins. [Records in the office of the Secretary of State do not disclose an Arkansas Publishing Company incorporation. Charter of West Memphis News was cancelled April 5, 1946],\nSee Culp v. United States, 131 Fed. 2d 93: also Milsaps v. Straus, 208 Ark. 265, 185 S. W. 2d 933.", "type": "majority", "author": "Grieein Smith, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Claude F. Cooper and T. J. 'Crowder, for appellant.", "Wils Davis and Joe C. Barrett, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "West Memphis News, Inc. v. Bond.\n4-8345\n206 S. W. 2d 449\nOpinion delivered December 15, 1947.\nClaude F. Cooper and T. J. 'Crowder, for appellant.\nWils Davis and Joe C. Barrett, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0514-01", "first_page_order": 530, "last_page_order": 541 }