Court Opinion

ID: 9778803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:21:23.352755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:13.331682
License: Public Domain

Jim Johnson, Associate Justice, dissenting. This case comes up after a demurrer to the complaint was sustained. It is the rule in Arkansas that allegations of a complaint are accepted as true on demurrer. Glenn v. Union Bank & Trust Company, 150 Ark. 38, 233 S. W. 798. This being so, I am convinced the appellant raised a prima facie case and the evidence should have gone to the jury. After all, there is only one basic question here and that is the effect of the article on the plaintiff’s reputation in the community. There are two ways to find this effect. One is from the evidence the plaintiff would have produced. The other is by giving certain meaning to words used in context as the majority has here. This second method is inexact, to say the least. I do not agree with the majority statement that this article could obviously not be libelous per se. If the article is false and tends to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt, or shame, it is libelous per se. Hall v. Binghampton Press Co., 29 N. Y. S. 760. The question of falsity in this case revolves around the use of the term “legal technicality”. In arriving at a conclusion as to whether the defendants ’ use of the term was true or false under the circumstances I don’t believe we should substitute a dictionary definition of the term for a jury finding. The plaintiff should have the benefit of any meaning ascribed to the phrase by his neighbors, and possible clients, in his community. Jackson v. Williams, 92 Ark. 486, 123 S. W. 751. The cause should be tried on its merits, not by this court as an Appellate jury. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent.