The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-11-13

was repeated or duplicated merely. This Is significant.-highly signifi- cant we think,-of a legislative con ception of single venue to be de-
 termined by the locus of primary wrongful act. and not of a multitude of venues to be created by mere repe- ttiors Or secondary extensions of the primary set.
 I. Where the terms of a statute do not indicate with reasonable cer- tainty their intended application to particular cases. though their general intent and applica tion are clear, they should be given such a construction as Is conductive to fairness and Jus
 tice, and .n harmony with the gen eral spirit and policy of the statute. rather tEan one which is offensive thereto,-if that construction is req sonably consistent with the language used. We of course do not mean that, in construing statutes whose meaning is plain. courts are to be swayed by considerations of their
 hardShip or iujustlce but only that
 where their language Is so lacking in elearness and precision that they
 may In reason mean either one thing or another, the considerations of fair
 ness justice and policy will be gwen ! weight in the entertainment of legs- latiYe intent, and may even be deci- | sive of that intent.
 We do not see now there can be an conflict Of opinion as to the un hfairness, injustice. or impolicy Of | permitting aggrieved persons, in this class of cases only. to select at their
 pleasure any judicia1 forum within the state where the political, reli- gious, industrial. moral. or personal prediceltions of the local citizenship .s~t k. biased views will probably be re-
 flectedI however sincerely. In a yer dict favorable to them.
 This aspect of the question has heen forcinlv stated and discussed by Graves, J.. in his dissenting opin- ion in Julian vs. K. c. Star Co.,, POO
 No. S5, 90, 107 S. W. 436, to which we have heretofore referred.
 In this connection 1t Is in point to observe that our venue statutes tSecs. 6110, 61I2) have been in force
 since 1852 and 1888, respectively. and We may well apply the remarks of Graves, J.. to that consideration: For
 fifty-two years this statute has been upon the books. The reports are full of libel suits. Lawyers of state re-
 nown have represented plaintiffs in
 these suits. No discovery that their clients possessed the unlimited right to select the forum-a valuable asset
 indeed, to be hid away so long It
 has remained for distinguished coun-
 sel In this case, fin the role of modern Columbus, to make this discovery in
 case possessing modern exigencies. The construction placed upon the i statute by learned lawyers, prior to these modern exigencies, ought to be
 Of weight with the court In now construing the statute"
 Summarizing our conclusions, as above indicated, we hold that in an action for libel against a newspaper the inJury--the breach of duty-oc- CUTS, within the meaning and appli- catior of the venue statute, at the
 place where the newspaper is prlmar- fly published, and not fin other places
 where IL is secondarily published that is, merely circulated; that un- der the allegations of the pleas in abatement, the place of primary pub licattcfs. and the locus of the injury
 was Birmingham. fin Jefferson county: and that this action could be prose
 cuted only in Jefferson county. 1t results that the demurrers to pleas in abatement numbered 6, 2, and
 8, were improperly and enormously | sustained.
 The judgment of the trial court in that behalf will be reversed, and the
 cause remanded for further proceed | ings in accordance with this opinion.
 As this ruling will probably dis pose of the cause as now pending we deem it unnecessary to consider the
 other questions presented by the nu-
 merous assignments of error. Reversed and remanded.
 Anderson, c. J., Mcclellan, Thomas and Miller, JJ., concur.
 Sayre and Gardner, JJ.. dissent.