
    The Constitution Publishing Company v. Stegall.
    January 27, 1896.
    Action of libel. Before Judge Westmoreland. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1895.
    The declaration alleged, that the defendant printed, published and circulated, in the Atlanta Constitution newspaper, the following false, malicious and libellous words concerning plaintiff: “Says they blew it in. John Stegall, a butcher, who has figured in police circles before, was arrested last night, charged with stealing $20 from a young boy named Yalentine. The amount had been given with which to pay a bill. Stegall says that they blew it in together, and that this is all there is in the affair.” Plaintiff’s name is John Stegall, and at the time of said publication he was a butcher. He has lived in Atlanta since 1866, has never been in the police court on any charge, has always been bonest, sober and upright, and bas at no time been a party to any sucb criminal transaction as is referred to in said publication. He never knew or beard of any sucb person as Valentine; and tbe publication, besides exposing bim to public hatred, ridicule and contempt, greatly damaged bim in bis business, causing bim to lose lucrative employment and destroying bis credit and mercantile standing. He lays damages at $9,650.50. Defendant demurred to tbe declaration, for want of a cause of action; and tbe demurrer was beard upon an agreed statement of facts in addition to tbe declaration itself. This statement was, that tbe publication was made in tbe newspaper as alleged; that plaintiff is tbe only John Stegall residing in Fulton county at tbe time of tbe publication, and tbe same was not true so far as it referred to bim; that a reporter of tbe newspaper saw a person named Will Stegall under arrest, charged with tbe crime set out in tbe publication, and it was tbe reporter’s purpose to refer to Will Stegall, but through error be reported tbe name of plaintiff instead; and that in fact tbe reporter and defendant bad no malice toward plaintiff. Tbe demurrer was overruled. -
   Atkinson, J.

1. The declaration, as it appears in the record, without amendment, sets forth a cause of action, and the general demurrer thereto was properly overruled.

2. The office of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of ^a declaration upon the facts as they are therein alleged; and being so limited, its scope cannot, by an agreed statement of facts which neither amends nor purports to amend the declaration, be extended to cover questions which might arise upon a motion for nonsuit upon a statement of facts otherwise than by the declaration appearing. Judgment affirmed.

Dorsey, Brewster & Hoioell, for plaintiff in error.

J. B. Stewart, contra.

97 406| ,101 3891

'97 40li| 103 686|

97 4001 8118 6191 97 406 113 692

97 406I 119 6S|  