SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1962 /7¢ 3
No. 606 27
SEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, PETITIONER,
vs.
L. B, SULLIVAN.
No. 609 7°
RALPH D, ABERNATHY, FT AL, PETITIONERS,
Vs.
L, B. SULLIVAN.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARL TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA
INDEX
VOLUME 3
Original Print
Revord from the Cireuit Court of Montgomery
County, Alabama-—Continued
Order continuing motion for new trial, December
16, 1960, J. EB. Lowery ....- eee 2081 999
Motion of defendant, 8. 8. Seay, Sr. for new
trial —— 2082 = 999
Continuance of motion . “ on 2092 = 1013
Certificate of service (omitted in printing) 2092 = 1018
ih
Record from the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County, Alabama—Continued
Order continuing motion for new trial, December
16, 1960, S. 8. Seay, Sr.
Motion of defendant, Fred L. Shuttl
new trial
Continuance of motion
Certificate of service (omitted in ‘printing) sous
Order continuing motion for new trial, December
16, 1960
Supersedeas bond filed by The New York Times
Company
Notice of writ of error __.
Notice of joining in appeal _
Notice to unite in appeal
Certificate of appeal ___
Motion for extension of time in which to 0 file
transcript in Circuit Court =
Order on motion for extension of time
Stipulation as to changes, ete. in record
Clerk’s certificates (omitted in printing) _____
Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of
Alabama ase
Assignments of error of The New York Times Com-
pany
Assignments of error of Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred
L. Shutilesworth, S. S. Seay, Sr. and J. BE.
Lowery
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) —_—
Certificate of appeal _
Motion of appellee to strike assignments of error
Motion of individual appellants to dismiss motion
to strike .
Minute entry of argument and submission _.
Opinion, Harwood, J. =
x
Motion for stay of execution _...
Stay of
Bond
Original Print
2093 «1013
2094 1014
2103 1027
2104 1027
2105 1028
2106 1028
2107 1030
2108 = 1031
2109 = 1032
2110 = 1033
2110a 1034
2110b 1035
2110e 1036
2111 1036
2113 1037
2113 = 1087
2165 1100
2188a 1132
2189 1183
2190 1184
2193 1187
2195 1139
2196. 11389
2254 1180
2255 1181
2256 1183
2258
1184
INDEX
Original
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) — 2259
Orders allowi certiorari 2260
Plaintifi’s i 564
1—One envalotie: Don McKee, Montgomery Ad-
vertiser, Montgomery, Alabama, dated April
1960 and contents of envelope relating to pay-
ment to stri 564
2—One envelope, John Chadwick, Room 505—
Massey Building, South Magazine, Birming-
ham, Alabama, dated April, 1960 and contents
of envelope relating to payment to stringers __ 566
3—Rules for Correspondents, The New York
Times, National News Desk, signed Harold
Faber 568
4 & 5—Two envelopes for John Chadwick, Bir-
mingham, Alabama, dated January 1960 and
March 1960 relating to payment to stringers 570
6 & T—Two envelopes for Don McKee, Mont-
gomery, Alabama, dated March 1960 and Feb-
ruary 1960 and contents of envelope relating
to payment to stringers ——_______ 572
8-12—Five envelopes for Don McKee, dated Feb-
ruary 1959, March 1959, July 1959, November
1959 and December 1959 and contents relating
576
to payment to stringers —_
1840—Twenty-eight envelopes for John Chad-
wick dated October 1959, September 1959,
August 1959, July 1959, June 1959, April
1959, January 1959, November 1958, October
1958, August 1958, July 1958, May 1958, March
1958, January 1958, December 1957, Septem-
ber 1957, August 1957, August 1957, June
1957, May 1957, March 1957, February 1957,
January 1957, December 1956, November 1956,
September 1956, August 1956 and June 1956
and contents relating to payment to stringers 583
41—Olerk’s note re— —_--______ = 622
1195
1197
1199
1201
1203
1207
1214
1253
Ww INDEX
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
42-45—Four envelopes for John Chadwick dated
May 1956, April 1956, February 1956 and
January 1956 with contents relating to pay-
ment to stiri
46-52—Seven envelopes for Maurice Castle Jr.,
Mobile Press Register, Mobile, Alabama, dated
October 1958, January 1959, May 1958, Janu-
ary 1958, January 1957, May 1956, January
1956 with contents relating to payment to
stringers
53—Telegram dated February 29, 1960 from
Faber, New York Times directed to the Man-
aging Editor of twenty-one newspapers (3
sheets of paper)
54—Telegram dated March 24, 1960 { from Faber,
New York Times to John R. Chadwick
55—Telegram dated March 23, 1960 signed
Desmond, New York Times Sunday Review to
Don McKee, Advertiser, Montgomery, Alabama
and reply thereto, dated March 23, 1960
56—Telegram dated March 2, 1960 from Des-
mond, New York Times Sunday Review to Don
McKee and reply thereto, dated March 2, 1960
57—Telegram dated April 13, 1960 from John
Chadwick to Harold Faber and telegram dated
April 13, 1960 from Potter, New York Times
to John Chadwick .
58—Telegram dated April 15, 1960 from John
Chadwick tc Harold Faber and reply from
O'Neill to John R. Chadwick —
59—Two telegrams, not dated, from John Chad-
wick to Harold Faber re Railroad Featherbed
Dispute
60—Letter dated January 26, 1959 from Don
McKee to Mr. Faber and reply dated January
30, 1959
61—Exchange of correspondence between Harold
Faber and Edward Swietnicki regarding em-
ployment, dated July 25, 1957, July 28, 1957
and September 15, 1957
623
628
641
648
644
645
647
648
650
Original Print
1253
i271
1273
1274
1275
1277
1278
1279
1280
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
62—Blank ecard for pertinent information for
appointment as New York Times correspondent
63-67—Correspondence between Robert J. Mur-
phy and Mr. Hal Faber, dated January 14,
1957, January 17, 1957, (2) January 20, 1957
and July 15, 1957 regarding employment
68—Letter from Harold Faber to John R. Chad-
wick, exhibit not dated, but in text, date
given as February 12, 1956
69-—Letter from Harold Faber to John R. Chad-
wick, dated April 20, 1958 _.
70—Letter from John R. Chadwick to Harold
Faber, dated May 9, 1958 with enclosures re-
lating to fire-ants
7i—Letter from John Chadwick to Harold
Faber, dated January 21, 1959 and reply dated
January 24, 1959 -
72—Letter from Harold Faber to Don McKee,
dated January 23, 1959 ____.
78—Letter from Harold Faber to Mr. James a
Strickland, dated January 7, 1957 _.
74——Letter from Harold Faber to Mr. H. D. Cul.
aes dated March 25, 1957
\—Letter from Hy Brown to National ‘News
“Dae, The New York Times, dated February
21, 1957
76—Transmittal letter from Beddow, Embry &
Beddow to Clerk, Circuit Court of Montgomery
County dated July 13, 1960 forwarding twenty-
eight photostat copies of New York Times
checks paid to stringers in Alabama and re-
verse sides of checks —
77—Advertisement, The New York ‘imes, Sun-
day, March 11, 1956 regarding “What The
South is Doing About Desegregation”
78—Telegram dated April 14, 1960 to Mr. Robert
Garst, The New York Times from Don McKee
Vv
Original Print
652
653
665
666
695
698
1283
1284
1288
1289
1289
1295
1296
1297
1297
1298
1299
1329
1331
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
79-90—Photostat copies of checks of New York
Times paid to stringers in Alabama and reverse
Claude Sitton, Southern News for weeks end-
ing February 4, 1960, March 22, 1960, January
28, 1960, January 6, 1959, December 23, 1958,
July, 1958, June 12, 1958 and May, 1958 ____
99-103—New York Times expense statements of
John N. Popham, dated August 26, May 1,
April 11, 1957, March 3, 1957 and May 16,
1956
104-110—New York Times expense statements of
Wayne Phillips for weeks ending February 11,
1956, February 18, 1956, February 25, 1956,
March 3, 1956, March 10, 1956, March 17, 1956
and March 24, 1956 0
1ij-114—New York Times expense statements of
George Barrett dated September 16~October 8,
March 7, 1957, December 20-December 24, De-
ember 0) WS Gi ey ons
115—New York Times expense statement of Pe-
ter Frederick Kihss for week ending March 2,
1956
116—New York Times expense statement of Clar-
ence Dean for week ending January 10, 1957
117—New York Times expense statement of H. E.
Salisbury for week ending April 13, 1960
Original Pritt
766
1835
1356
1364
1369
1376
1380
1381
1382
[fol. 2081]
In Crcurr Court or Monwrcomsry County, ALABAMA
Court Met Pursuant to Adjournment
Present The Honorable Walter B. Jones, Judge Presiding
[Title omitted]
Orprr Contrxuine Morion ror New Trrmi—
December 16, 1960
This day came the parties by attorneys and the motion
of the defendant J. E. Lowery, to set aside the verdict of
the jury and the judgment of the Court entered thereon
and to grant him a new trial herein, be and the same is
hereby continued until January 14, 1961 at 10:00 A. M.
[fol. 2082]
In Crecurr Court or Montcomery County, ALABAMA
Morton or Derenpant, 8. 8. Seay, Sr. ror New Trrar—
Filed December 2, 1960
Comes now the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., in the above
styled cause and moves the Court to set aside the verdict
of the jury heretofore returned and the judgment rendered
thereon in this Court on, to-wit: November 3, 1960, and
to grant a new trial of the issues herein and, as grounds
therefor, sets forth and assigns, separately and severally,
the following:
1. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the Defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 1. I charge you gentlemen of the jury,
to find a verdict in favor of the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.
2. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested
by the Defendant in the cause:
_, “Charge No. 2. I charge you, gentlemen of j
if you find that the Defendent & S. Seay, ie a
thorize the publication of the article in question which
appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March 29,
1960, you must find a verdict in. favor of him, ,
3. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
wepieh mes sneepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refus O give the following written cha:
by the Defendant in the cause: en: ROSTGSHRC!
. “Charge No. 3. I charge you, gentlemen of the ;
if you find that the Defendant, s 8. Seay, oe did not eat
sent to the publication of the article in question which ap-
peared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March 29, 1960,
you must find a verdict in favor of him.” , .
4. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
Winch ae ae e by the Defendant, in that the Court
eiused to give the following written cha:
the Defendant in the cause : ee Renee
__ “Charge No.4 I charge you, gentlemen of the }
if you find that the Defendant, ws. Seay, Sr., did mee he
lish or cause to be published the article in question which
appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March 29,
1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him” ” ;
5. For that during the trial an error of law o
2 ccurred
week vs crcanted ~ by the Defendant, in that the Court
Teiused to give the following written cha;
the Defendant in this cause. ape neeies be
; “Charge No. 5. I charge you, gentlemen of j
if you find that the Defendant, S. Seay, het ls
thorize anyone to publish on his behalf the article in ques-
tion which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict for him.” ,
[fol. 2083] No. 6. For that durin; ii
. 6 iF g the trial an error of
law occurred which was excepted to by the Defendant, fn
that the Court refused to give the following written charge
requested by the Defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 6. I charge you, gentlemen of the }
. . ie jury, th:
if from the evidence you find that the Defendant, s. ey on
LUUL
Sr., did not, either directly or through some other person
authorized to act for him, publish or consent to the publica-
tion of the statements complained of in the New York Times
on Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in
favor of him.”
7. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the Defendant in the cause:
Charge No. 8. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
unless from the evidence you are convinced that the Defen-
dant, S. S. Seay, Sr., was the author or the publisher
of the advertisement which appeared in the New York
Times (the subject matter of this suit) on Tuesday, March
29, 1960, you must return a verdict for said Defendant.”
8. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the Defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 9. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
to constitute a libel, there must be a publication as well as a
writing, and if the publication was made without the con-
sent of the Defendant, S. 8. Seay, Sr., the offense is not
complete as to him and you must return a verdict in favor
of him.”
9. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the Defendant in the cause:
Charge No. 11. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
if you find from the evidence that the Defendant, S. S. Seay,
Sr., had no knowledge of the writing or publication of the
advertisement, prior to publication, that appeared in the
New York Times, dated, Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you
must return a verdict for the said Defendant.”
10. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
see
refused to give the following written charge requested by ;
the Defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 12. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
the. burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to reasonably
satisfy you from the evidence in this case that the Defen-
dant, 8. S. Seay, Sr. directly or indirectly, or through some
other person authorized to act for him, published or con-
sented to the publication of the statements complained of
[fol. 2084] which appeared in the New York Times on
March 29, 1960, and unless from the evidence you are con-
vineed that said Defendant did directly or indirectly or
through some other person authorized to act for him, pub-
lished or consented to the publication of said statements,
a you must return a verdict for the Defendant, S. S. Seay,
r.
ii. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the
Court refused to give the following written charge re-
quested by the Defendant in the cause:
__ “Charge No. 13. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury that
if you believe from the evidence that the Defendant, S. S.
Seay, Sr., did Not authorize the use of his name in connec-
tion with the publication of the advertisement which ap-
peared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you,
must return a verdict for said Defendant.”
12. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
Rael was sxoomted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested
by the Defendant in this cause: s 4
“Charge No. 14. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe
from the evidence that the Defendant, 8. S. Seay, Sr., did
not consent to the use of his name in connection with the
publication of the advertisement which appeared in the
New. York Times on March 29, 1960, you must return a
verdict for said Defendant.”
(13. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the Defendant in the cause:
aver
“Charge No. 16. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
if from the evidence you believe that the defendant, S. S.
Seay, Sr., did not publish or cause to be published the al-
Jeged libelous matter contained in the advertisement which
appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960, then;
as a matter of law, there was no legal obligation on the
art of this defendant to reply to the letter written by the
Plaintiff to this defendant demanding a retraction of the
alleged libelous matters, and you must return a verdict
for said defendant.”
14. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 17. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
that if from the evidence you believe that the defendant
never authorized any one to affix his name to the adver-
tisement which is the subject matter of this suit, and if you
further believe from the evidence that the plaintiff wrote
a letter to the defendant demanding a retraction of certain
alleged libelous matter contained in said advertisement,
[fol. 2085] and if you further believe from the evidence that
the defendant did not reply to the Plaintiff’s letter, T charge
you as a matter of law that the Defendant’s failure to reply
to plaintiff’s letter cannot be considered by you as an ad-
mission that he published the alleged libelous matter; under
such circumstances the law does not require the Defendant
to reply to Plaintiff’s letter, and you must return a verdict
for the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.”
15. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the
Court refused to give the following written charge re-
quested by the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 18. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe
the evidence in this case, you must return a verdict for the
defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.”
16. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested
by the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 19 Gentlemen of the j
‘ . 19. ont] ie jury, unless fi
evidence you are convinced that the defendant S S. Gere
Sr. consented to the use of his name in eonnection with
the publication of the advertisement complained of, you
“Charge No. 20. I char j
- 20. ‘ge you gentlemen of the jury, that
uniess on the evidence you are convinced that the defendant,
18 7
tisement complained of, prior to publication i
t cation
York Times, dated Tuesday, March 29, 1960, oe ak
find for the defendant.” , > Fou amas
18. For that during the trial an error of
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in ‘iat eta
gave the following oral charge to the jury: “Now, the Court
is of the opinion and so charges you, gentlemen of the
Jury, that the matter complained of in plaintiffs Exhibit
No. 347, that’s the controversial ad which you will have
before you, and parts of which are set out in the Counts
rere in the Complaint, belongs to that class of defa:
tion called in law, libel per se.” ves
19. For that during the trial an
z: rin error of law oce
which wag excepted to by the defendant, in that the Const
20. For that during the trial an e:
4 rror of law
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Cont
LUUo
gave the following oral charge to the jury: “Now, it is the
contention of the plaintiff here that although you may
believe, as to the four individual defendants, that they did
not sign this advertisement and did not authorize it, yet
it is the contention of the plaintiff, Sullivan, that the four
individuals, the four individual defendants after knowing
of the publication of the advertisement and after knowing
of its content, ratified the use of their names, that is, they
approved and sanctioned this advertisement. In other
words, the plaintiff, Sullivan, insists that there was a ratifi-
cation of the advertisement and the use of their names
as signers of the advertisement by the four individual
defendants and we here define ratification as the approval
by a person of a prior act which did not bind him but
which was professedly done on his account or in his behalf
whereby the act, the use of his name, the publication, is
given effect as if authorized by him in the very beginning.
Ratification is really the same as a previous authorization
and is a confirmation or approval of what has been done
by another on his account. Now, it is for you twelve jurors
to say from all the evidence whether the four defendants
ratified the advertisement now before you, that is, ratified
that advertisement as I have defined the word ratification
to you.”
21. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the Defendant, in that the Court
gave the following oral charge to the jury: “We here define
ratification as the approval by a person of a prior act which
did not bind him but which was professedly done on his
account or in his behalf whereby the act, the use of his
name, the publication, is given effect as if authorized by
him in the very beginning.”
22. The Court erred in overruling defendant’s demurrers
to the complaint and to each count thereof.
23. The Court erred in overruling defendant’s amended
demurrers to the complaint and to each count thereof.
24. The Court erred in denying and overruling the de-
fendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s evidence, said mo-
tion having been made at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s
case,
25. The Court erred in denying and overruling the defen-
dant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff's evidence, said mo-
tion having been made at the conclusion of the introdue-
ing of all of the evidence in the case.
26. There existed an irregularity in the roceedin,
[fol. 2087] the Court by which the party nen
prevented from having a fair trial in that the Court is a
member of the Board of Jury Supervisor of Montgomery,
Alabama; and that said Board selected jurors pursuant to
Act No. 118 of March 8, 1939, and said Act being unconstitu-
tional, said selection of jurors thereunder by the Court be-
ing in violation of Article I, Section II of Alabama Code
of 1901 and the Code of Alabama (1940) Title 7, Section
260, in that the Court as a member of the Board by so select-
ing those persons who are to decide the case decided both
the facts and the law. :
27. There existed an irregularity in the proceedings of
the Court by which the party defendant was prevented fons
having a fair trial in that defendant was subjected to the
exercise of judicial power before a tribunal which required
its very facilities to be segregated on the basis of race and
color and that the imposition of judicial power upon de-
fendant in a segregated tribunal denied to defendant his
right to due process and equal protection of the law as
puatenteed. him under the Alabama and Federal Constitu-
ions.
28. There existed an irregularity in the proceedi
the Court which prevented the party defendant pened
ing a fair trial in that Alabama’s Constitutional Amendment
of 1850 required the popular election of judges, said amend.
ment being codified in Section 152 of the Alabama Con-
stitution of 1901, and that under Section 152 a judge’s
lawful election to the court by all qualified electors is con-
stitutionally pre-requisite to the lawful exercise of judicial
power vested in the court by Article 6, Section 139 of the
Alabama Constitution, that said Negro defendant is a
member of a class of eligible qualified electors, and that
Negroes have been intentionally, and systematically ex-
eluded from participating in the electoral selection of
judges required by Section 152 of the Alabama Constitu-
tue
tion and as a consequence thereof the imposition of judicial
power over defendant Negro member of said systematically
excluded class of qualified electors by a judge not lawfully
elected results in a taking of defendant’s property without
due process of law as guaranteed to defendant under the
constitution and laws of the State of Alabama and the
Federal Constitution, and deprives defendant of the equal
protection of the law guaranteed him under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
29. The record is so devoid of evidentiary support of the
allegations alleged in the complaint, in that the plaintiff
having failed to present any evidence upon which it could
rationally be found that this defendant was legally re-
sponsible for the publication of the advertisement which is
the basis of this suit, the verdict of the jury and the
judgment of the Court against the defendant in the amount
of $500,000.00 deprived the defendant of due process of
law in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of
[fol. 2088] Alabama.
30. The record is so devoid of evidentiary support of
the allegations alleged in the complaint, in that the plain-
tiff having failed to present any evidence upon which it
could rationally he found that this defendant was legally
responsible for the publication of the advertisement which
is the basis of this suit, the verdict of the jury and the judg-
ment of the Court against the defendant in the amount of
$500,000.00 deprived the defendant of due process of law
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
31. The record is so devoid of evidentiary support of the
allegations alleged in the complaint, in that the plaintiff
having failed to present any evidence upon which it could
rationally be found that this defendant was legally re-
sponsible for the publication of the advertisement which
is the basis of this suit, the verdict of the jury and the
judgment of the court against the defendant in the amount
of $500,000.00 deprived this defendant of his property with-
eut due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
32. The verdict of the jury and th isi
against the defendant the suoent eps Go00e ont 1
supported by any evidence, and, as such, it deprives the
defendant of his property without due process of law in 4
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
33. The verdict of the j isi
d = the Jury and the decision of the C i
were not sustained by the great preponderance of the oe
dence.
34. The verdict of the } isi
erd Jury and the decision of th
were not sustained by the great preponderance of the od
dence, as follows:
(a) The evidence showed clearl
é i ly that the defend:
did not publish nor cause to be published the advertise
ment which is the basis of this suit,
(b) The evidence showed clearly that defendant did not
give his consent for his name to be placed on the ad.
suit.
(ce) e evidence showed clearly efendant
he id he that d dant had no
prior knowledge that said advertisement was goin, 0
Ex nm S golng ti
(d) The plaintiff's evidence failed t
© ple 0 show a
connection between the defendant and the alleged Libel
ous matter stated in the complaint.
(e) There is no evidence in the reco
0 a rd to show that
defendant _Yatified the alleged libelous matter aa
tained in the complaint. :
35. That the verdict of the } isi
T jury and the d
Court is contrary to law in that plaintiff ig tne
vertisement which advertisement is the basis of this
LUZ
tive of defendant’s constitutional right under the First
Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amend-
ment to the Federal Constitution, in that said judgment
of the court was imposed on defendant because of his well
known past and present activities and views on civil rights,
said view being diametrically opposed to those of plaintiff;
said decision of the court having the practical effect of de-
terring and/or discouraging defendant’s exercise of his
constitutionally protected political rights of speech, press
and association.
36. For that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the
law and evidence in the case.
37. For that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by
the great preponderance of the evidence and is contrary
to both the law and the facts in the case.
38. For that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the
Jaw in the ease.
89. For that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the
facts in the case.
40. For that the verdict of the jury and the judgment
entered thereon are contrary to the great weight and pre-
ponderance of the evidence in this case.
41. For that the verdict of the jury is excessive in that
it is reported to have been the largest verdict ever rendered
by a jury in the State of Alabama.
42. For that the verdict of the jury is so excessive as to
shock the conscience of the court and was a result of bias,
passion, and prejudice against the defendants.
43. For that the verdict of the jury is excessive and a
result of bias, passion, and prejudice against the defen-
dants.
44, There existed an irregularity in the proceedings
of the Court by which the party defendant was prevented
from having a fair trial.
45. There existed an irregularity in the proceedings of
the jury by which the party defendant was prevented from
having a fair trial.
1010
46. There existed an irregularity in the proceedings by 4
the prevailing party, by which the defendant was prohibited s
from having a fair trial.
47. There existed an irregularity in an order of the
Court by which the Defendant was prevented from having
a fair trial.
48. There existed in the case an abuse of discretion of the
Court by which the defendant was prevented from having 3
a fair trial.
[fol. 2090] 49. The jury in the cause was guilty of a mis-
conduct during the trial of the case.
50. The prevailing party was guilty of misconduct in the 3
trial of the case.
51. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant.
52. For that during the trial an error of law occurred :
which was excepted to by the defendant, that is the failure
of the Court to make special findings of the issues of the
cause in the case after being asked to do so by the defendant
in the cause.
53. For that the Court abused its diseretion in denying
the defendant’s request for special findings of the issues
in this cause in that the defendant requested that compensa-
tory damages and punitive damages be assessed separately
in the cause and the Court refused defendant’s request for
such separate findings and the defendant was thereby pre-
vented from having a fair trial of this cause.
54. For that the Court abused its discretion in denying
the defendant’s request for special findings of the issues
in this cause.
55. For that all of the evidence produced at the trial re-
lating to damages indicated that the plaintiff suffered no
Gamage as a result of any action on the part of this de-
endant.
56. For that the trial Court erred in admitting in evi-
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
Loi
plaintiff’s witness Grover Hall as to his opinion that the
advertisement, which advertisement is the basis of this suit,
was of and concerning the plaintiff and his opinion as te
other matters, which matters will more fully appear from
the transcript of the record, which record has not been com-
pleted by the court reporter as of this date.
57. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence
over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the plain-
tiffs witness Arnold Blackwell as to his opinion that the ad-
yertisement, which advertisement is the basis of this suit,
was of and concerning the plaintiff and his opinion as to
other matters, which matters will more fully appear from
the transcript of the record, which record has not been
completed by the court reporter as of this date.
58. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi-
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
plaintiff’s witness, Mr. William McDonald as to his opinion
that the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis
of this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his
opinion as to other matters, which matters will more fully
[fol. 2091] appear from the transcript of the record, which
record has not been completed by the court reporter as of
this date.
59. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence
over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the plain-
tiff’s witness Mr. Harry Kaminsky as to his opinion that
the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis of
this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his opin-
jon as to other matters, which matters will more fully
appear from the transcript of the record, which record
has not been completed by the court reporter as of this
date.
60. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi-
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
plaintiff’s witness Mr. H. M. Price, Sr., as to his opinion
that the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis
of this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his
opinion as to other matters, which matters will more fully
appear from the transcript of the record which record has
not been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
iVlo
Tfol. 2092]
61. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence
S obteeHie ee eer the eaat Ty Circurr Court or Mowtcomery County, ALABAMA
over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the plain-
tiff’s witness Mr. William Parker as to his opinion that the
adverti which adverti is the basis of this
suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his opinion
as to other matters, which matters will more fully appear
from the transcript of the record, which record has not
been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
62. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi-
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
plaintiff’s witness Mr. Horace D. White as to his opinion
that the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis
of this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his
opinion as to other matters, which matters will more fully
appear from the transcript of the record, which record has ’
not been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
Respectfully submitted, :
Fred D. Gray, 34 No. Perry St, Montgomery, Ala- 4
Continuance or Morion—December 2, 1960
The foregoing motion was presented to me on this the 2nd
day of December, 1960, and it is hereby continued to the 16
day of December, 1960, at 11 A.M. for hearing. Execution
is hereby stayed by the Court during the pendency of this
- motion.
Walter B. Jones, Cireuit Judge, 15th Judicial Cir-
euit of Alabama.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
December 16, 1960—Motion continued for hearing at
10:00 A.M. January 14, 1960.
Walter B. Jones, Judge.
[File endorsement omitted]
ame; [fol. 2093]
Vernon Z. Crawford, 570 Davis Ave., Mobile, Ala- in Cmourr Court or Montcomery County, Auapama
bama;
‘Court Met Pursuant to Adjournment
Belemon EBay Tey Bae, BeEEongh, Wect | Present The Honorable Walter B. Jones, Judge Presiding
gomery, Alabama,
Attorneys for Defendant, By: Solomon 8. Seay, Jr. [Title omitted]
Over Contivurve Morion ror New Trrat—
December 16, 1960
This day came the parties by attorneys and the motion of
the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., to set aside the verdict of the
Jury and the judgment of the-Court entered thereon and
~ to grant him a new trial herein, be and the same is hereby
eontinued until January 14, 1961 at 10:00 A. M.
[fol. 2094]
iy Creourr Courr or Moyrcomery County, ALABAMA
Motion or Derznpant, Frep L. SxurruesworrH FoR
New Trr1—Filed December 2, 1960
Comes now the Defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, in
the above styled cause and moves the Court to set aside
the verdict of the jury heretofore returned and the judg- :
ment rendered thereon in this Court on, to-wit: November |
3, 1960, and to grant a new trial of the issues herein and,
as grounds therefor, sets forth and assigns, separately 4
and severally, the following:
1. For that during the trial an error of law occurred ©
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court |
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 1. I charge you gentlemen of the jury, to
find a verdict in favor of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttles. 4
worth.”
2. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 2. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
if you find that the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth did
not authorize the publication of the article in question
which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March
29, 1960, you must find a verdiet in favor of him.
3. For that during the trial an error of law occurred 3
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
__ “Charge No. 3. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury that
if you find that the defendant Fred L. Shuttlesworth did
not consent to the publication of the article in question
which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March *
29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him.”
AVLo
4. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
- refused to give the following written charge requested by
‘the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
if you find that the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth did
_ not publish or cause to be published the article in question
which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March
29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him.”
5. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
. which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 5. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
if you find that the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, did
. not authorize anyone to publish on his behalf the article
in question which appeared in the New York Times on
Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict for him.”
6. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
ffol. 2095] which was excepted to by the defendant, in that
the Court refused to give the following written charge
requested by the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 6. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
if from the evidence you find that the defendant, Fred L.
Shuttlesworth, did not, either directly or through some other
person authorized to act for him, publish or consent to the
publication of the statements complained of in the New
York Times on Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a
verdict in favor of him.”
7. For that during the trial an error of Jaw occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 8. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
unless from the evidence you are convinced that the defen-
dant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth was the author or the pub-
Hsher of the advertisement which appeared in the New
AULY
ements, then you must return a verdict for the defen-
ani, Fred L. Shuttlesworth.
Ll. For that during the trial an error of law oceurred
hich was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
fused to give the following written charge requested by
defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 13. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
you believe from the evidence that the defendant, Fred
‘L. Shuttlesworth, did not authorize the use of his name in
‘gonnection with the publication of the advertisement which
ppeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you
ast return a verdict for said defendant.”
York Times (the subject matter of this suit) on Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must return a verdict for said defen:
dant.”
8. For that during the trial an error of law oceurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court |
refused to give the following written charge requested b;
the defendant in this cause:
“Charge No. 9. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to
constitute a libel, there must be a publication as well as %
a writing, and if the publication was made without the
consent of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, the offense =
is not complete as to him and you must return a verdict
in favor of him.” 12. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
‘which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 14. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe
from the evidence that the defendant, Fred L. Shuttles-
worth, did not consent to the use of his name in connection
ith the publication of the advertisement which appeared
in the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you must return
@ verdict for said Defendant.”
18. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 16. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
if from the evidence you believe that the defendant, Fred
L. Shuttlesworth, did not publish or cause to be published
the alleged libelous matter contained in the advertisement
which appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960,
then as a matter of law, there was no legal obligation on
the part of this defendant to reply to the letter written by
the plaintiff to this defendant demanding a retraction of the
alleged libelous matters, and you must return a verdict
for said defendant.”
14. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
9. For that during the trial an error of Jaw occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court 4
refused to give the following written charge requested
by the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 11. T charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
that if you find from the evidence that the defendant, Fred 4
L. Shuttlesworth, had no knowledge of the writing or pub-
lication of the advertisement, prior to publication, that 4
appeared in the New York Times, dated Tuesday, March |
29, 1960, you must return a verdict for the said defendant.”
10. For that during the trial an error of law oceurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 12. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
that the burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to reasonably
satisfy you from the evidence in this case that the defen-
dant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, directly or indirectly, or
through some other person authorized to act for him, pub-
lished or consented to the publication of the statements
[fol. 2096] complained of which appeared in the New York
Times on March 29, 1960, and unless from the evidence
you are convinced that said defendant did directly or in-
directly or through some other person authorized to act
for him, published or consented to the publication of said
refused to give the following written charge requested by
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 17. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
that if from the evidence you believe that the defendant
never authorized any one to affix his name to the adver-
tisement which is the subject matter of this suit and if you
further believe from the evidence that the plaintiff wrote
a letter to the defendant demanding a retraction of certain
[fol. 2097] alleged libelous matter contained in said adver-
tisement, and if you further believe from the evidence that
the defendant did not reply to the plaintiff’s letter, I
charge you as a matter of law that the defendant’s failure
to reply to plaintifi’s letter cannot be considered by you
as an admission that he published the alleged libelous
matter; under such circumstances the law does not require
the defendant to reply to plaintiff’s letter, and you must
return a verdict for the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth.”
15. For that during the trial'an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by }
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 18. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe
the evidence in this case, you must return a verdict for the
defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth.”
16. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by
LUIS
“Charge No. 20. I charge you gentlemen of the jury, that
unless on the evidence you are convinced that the defen-
dant, had knowledge of the writing or publication of the
advertisement complained of, prior to publication in the
New York Times, dated Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must
find for the defendant.”
18. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
gave the following oral charge to the jury: “Now, the
Court is of the opinion and so charges you, gentlemen of
the jury, that the matter complained of in plaintiff’s Ex-
hibit No. 347, that’s the controversial ad which you will
have before you, and parts of which are set out in the
Counts here in the Complaint, belongs to that class of
defamation called in law, libel per se.”
19. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
gave the following oral charge to the jury: “We can say,
as part of the law in this case, that a publication is libelous
per se when they are suck as to degrade, the plaintiff in
the estimation of his friends and the people of the place
[fol. 2098] where he lives, as injure him in his public office,
or impute misconduct to him in his office, or want or official
integrity, or want of fidelity to a public trust or such as
will subject the plaintiff to ridicule or public distrust. Ail
those kind of charges are called, libelous per se.”
20. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
gave the following oral charge to the jury: “Now, it is the
contention of the plaintiff here that although you may
believe, as to the four individual defendants, that they did
not sign this advertisement and did not authorize it, yet
it is the contention of the plaintiff, Sullivan, that the four
individuals, the four individual defendants after knowing
of the publication of the advertisement and after knowing
of its content, ratified the use of their names, that is, they
2pproved and sanctioned this advertisement. In other
words, the plaintiff, Sullivan, insists that there was a
ication of the advertisement and the use of their names
the defendant in the cause:
“Charge No. 19. Gentlemen of the jury, unless from the
evidence you are convinced that the defendant, Fred L.
Shuttlesworth, consented to the use of his name in con-
nection with the publication of the advertisement com- 4
plained of, you must find for said defendant.”
17. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
refused to give the following written charge requested by.
the defendant in the cause: E
‘mconstitutional, said selection of jurors thereunder by
the Court being in violation of Article I, Section 11 of
Alabama Code of 1901 and the Code of Alabama (1940)
Yitle 7, Section 260, in that the Court as a member of the
Board by so selecting those persons who are to decide the
ease decided both the facts and the law.
27. There existed an irregularity in the proceedings of
the Court by which the party defendant was prevented
from having a fair trial in that defendant was subjected
to the exercise of judicial power before a tribunal which
required its. very facilities to be segregated on the basis
ef race and color and that the imposition of judicial power
‘upon defendant in a segregated tribunal denied to defendant
s right to.due process and equal protection of the law
as guaranteed him under the Alabama and Federal Con-
siitutions.
28. There existed an irregularity in the proceedings of
the Court which prevented the part defendant from having
@ fair trial ‘in that Alabama’s Constitutional Amendment
“of 1850 required the popular election of judges, said amend-
‘nent being codified. in Section 152 of the Alabama Con-
stitution of 1901, and that under Section 152 a judge’s
lewful election to the court by all qualified electors is
mstitutionally pre-requisite to the lawful exercise of judi-
ial power vested in the court by Article 6, Section 139 of
Alabama Constitution; that said Negro defendant is
a member of a class of eligible qualified electors, and that
Negroes have been intentionally, and systematically ex-
eladed from participating in the electoral selection of
judges required by Section 152 of the Alabama Constitu-
fion and as a consequence thereof the imposition of judicial
power over defendant Negro member of said systematically
excluded class of qualified electors by a judge not lawfully
elected results in a taking of defendant’s property without
Gne process of law as guaranteed to defendant under the
eonstitution and laws of the State of Alabama and the Fed-
-eral Constitution; and deprives defendant of the equal
protection of the law guaranteed him under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
as signers of the advertisement by the four individual
defendants and we here define ratification as the approval
by a person of a prior act which did not bind him but which
was professedly done on his account or in his behalf where-4
by the act, the use of his name, the publication, is given
effect as if authorized by him in the very beginning.
Ratification is really the same as a previous authorization @
and is a confirmation or approval of what has been done
by another on his account. Now, it is for you twelve jurors 4
to say from all the evidence whether the four defendants |
ratified the advertisement now before you, that is, ratified |
that advertisement as I have defined the word ratification
to you.”
21. For that during the trial an error of law occurred 4
which was excepted to by the defendant, in that the Court
gave the following oral charge to the jury: “We here define |
ratification as the approval by a person of a prior act which
did not bind him but which was professedly done on hi
account or in his behalf whereby the act, the use of hi
name, thé publication, is given effect as if authorized by |
him in the very beginning.”
22. The Court erred in overruling defendant’s demurrer:
to the complaint and to each count thereof.
23. The Court erred in overruling defendant’s amended |
demurrers to the complaint and to each count thereof.
24. The Court erred in denying and overruling the de
fendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s evidence, said motion
having been made at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case. 3
25. The Court erred in denying and overruling the de-
fendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s evidence, said
motion having been made at the conclusion of the intro- |
ducing of all of the evidence in the case.
[fol. 2099] 26. There existed an irregularity in the pro-
ceedings of the Court by which the part defendant was
prevented from having a fair trial in that the Court i
a member of the Board of Jury Supervisors of Mont-
gomery, Alabama; and that said Board selected jurors |
pursuant to Act No. 118 of March 8, 1939, said Act being
34, The verdict of the jury and the decision of the court
‘were not sustained by the great preponderance of the evi-
@ence, as follows:
(a) The evidence showed clearly that the defendant
did not publish nor cause to be published the adver-
tisement which is the basis of this suit.
(b) The evidence showed clearly that defendant
aid not give his consent for his name to be placed on
the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis
of this suit.
(c) The evidence showed clearly that defendant had
no prior knowledge that said advertisement was going
to be published.
(a) The plaintiff’s evidence failed to show any
causal connection between the defendant and the al-
leged libelous matter stated in the complaint.
29. The record is so devoid of evidentiary support of
the allegations alleged in the complaint, in that the plain-
tiff having failed to present any evidence upon which it
could rationally be found that this defendant was legally
responsible for the publication of the advertisement which
is the basis of this suit, the verdict of the jury and the
[fol. 2100] judgment of the Court against the defendant in
the amount of $500,000.00 deprived the defendant of due
process of law in violation of the Constitution and laws
of the State of Alabama.
30. The record is so devoid of evidentiary support of the
allegations alleged in the complaint, in that the plaintiff
having failed to present any evidence upon which it could
rationally be found that this defendant was legally re-
sponsible for the publication of the advertisement which
is the basis of this swit, the verdict of the jury and the
judgment of the Court against the defendant in the amount
of $500,000.00 deprived the defendant of due process of
law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
(e) There is no evidence in the record to show that
the defendant ratified the alleged libelous matter
81. The record is so devoid of evidentiary support of contained tn "the-complamt.
the allegations alleged in the complaint, in that the plain-
5. + i the jury and th isi f th
tiff having failed to present any evidence upon which i 35. That the verdict of the jury and the decision of the
Gourt is contrary to law in that plaintiff is au official of
the Government of Alabama, and that the institution of
this libel action for alleged defamation of plaintiff govern-
ffol. 2101] mental official and the consequent imposition of
damages upon defendant is an unconstitutional use of the
judicial machinery of the State of Alabama infringing upon
defendant’s freedom of speech and association, violative of
defendant’s constitutional right under the First Amend-
ment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Federal Constitution, in that said judgment of the court
was imposed on defendant because of his well known past
and present activities and views on civil rights, said view
being diametrically opposed to those of plaintiff; said
decision of the Court having the practical effect of deter-
= and/or discouraging defendant’s exercise of his con-
tutionally protected political rights of speech, press and
association.
32. The verdict of the jury and the decision of the Court
against the defendant in the amount of $500,000.00 is not
supported by any evidence and, as such, it deprives the
defendant of his property without due process of law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
83. The verdict of the jury'and the decision of the Court
were not sustained by the great preponderance of the evi- :
lence.
49. The jury in the cause was guilty of a misconduct dur-
36. For that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the
F ag ihe trial of the case.
law and evidence in the case.
37. For that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by
the great preponderance of the evidence and is contrary toes
both the law and the facts in the case. 3
38. For that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the #
law in the case. 7
50. The prevailing party was guilty of misconduct in
2 trial of the case.
51. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
fhich was excepted to by the defendant.
52. For that during the trial an error of law occurred
hich was excepted to by the defendant, that is the failure
f the Court to make special findings of the issues of the
wause in the case after being asked to do so by the defen-
dant in the cause.
53. For that the Court abused its discretion in denying
the defendant’s request for special findings of the issues
this cause in that the defendant requested that compen-
tory damages and punitive damages be assessed sepa-
ely in the cause and the Court refused Defendant’s re-
est for such separate findings and the defendant was
ereby prevented from having a fair trial of this cause.
54. For that the Court abused its discretion in denying
the defendant’s request for special findings of the issues
this cause.
es % . oo. . j 55. For that all of the evidence produced at the trial
44, There existed an irregularity in the proceedings of lating to damages indicated that the plaintiff suffered
the Court by which the party defendant was prevented damage as a result of any action on the part of this
from having a fair trial. iefendant.
45. There existed an irregularity in the proceedings of
the jury by which the party defendant was prevented from
having a fair trial.
39. For that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the
facts in the case.
40. For that the verdict of the jury and the judgment
entered thereon are contrary to the great weight and pre-
ponderance of the evidence in the ease. ;
_ 41. For that the verdict of the jury is excessive in that :
it is reported to have been the largest verdict ever rendered
by a jury in the State of Alabama. 3
42. For that the verdict of the jury is so excessive as
to shock the conscience of the court and was a result of 4
bias, passion and prejudice against the defendant.
43. For that the verdict of the jury is excessive and as §
a result of bias, passion, and prejudice against the defen-
dants.
56. For that the trial Court erred in admitting in evi-
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
plaintiff’s witness Grover Hall as to his opinion that the
vertisement, which advertisement is the basis of this
suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his opinion as
to other matters, which matters will more fully appear
‘rom the transcript of the record, which record has not
been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
37. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi-
‘dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
intiff’s witness, Arnold Blackwell, as to his opinion that
advertisement, which advertisement is the basis of this
46. There existed an irregularity in the proceedings by @
the prevailing party, by which the defendant was pro- {
hibited from having a fair trial.
47. There existed an irregularity in an order of the |
Court by which the defendant was prevented from having ¢
a fair trial.
48. There existed in the case an abuse of discretion of
(fel. 2102] the Court by which the defendant was prevented §
from having a fair trial. E
suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his opinion
as to other matters, which matters will more fully appear
from the transcript of the record, which record has not
been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
58. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi-
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
plaintifi’s witness Mr. William McDonald as to his opinion
that the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis
of this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his %
[fol. 2103] opinion as to other matters, which matters will
more fully appear from the transcript of the record, which ’
record has not been completed by the court reporter as
of this date.
59. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi.
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
plaintiffs witness Mr. Harry Kaminsky as to his opinion ;
that the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis
of this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his:
opinion as to other matters, which matters will more full
appear from the transcript of the record, which record has 4
not been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
60. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi- 3
dence over the defcendant’s objection the testimony of the 4
plaintiffs witness Mr. H. M. Price, Sr., as to his opinion
that the advertisement, which advertisement is the basi
of this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his 4
opinion as to other matters, which matters will more fully
appear from the transcript of the record which record has
not been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
61. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of th
plaintif’s witness Mr. William Parker as to his opinion |
that the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis 7
of this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his
opinion as to other matters, which matters will more fully 3
appear from the transcript of the record, which record has |
not been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
62. For that the trial court erred in admitting in evi- q
dence over the defendant’s objection the testimony of the
‘plaintiff’s witness, Mr. Horace D. White as to his opinion
& the advertisement, which advertisement is the basis
this suit, was of and concerning the plaintiff and his
‘opinion as to other matters, which matters will more fully
ppear from the transcript of the record, which record has
ot been completed by the court reporter as of this date.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred. D. Gray, 34 No. Perry Street, Montgomery,
Alabama;
Vernon Z. Crawford, 570 Davis Avenue, Mobile,
Alabama;
Solomon S. Seay, Jr., 29 No. McDonough St., Mont-
gomery, Alabama;
Attorneys for Defendant.
By: Solomon §. Seay, Jr., Attorney for named de-
fendant.
is Ciecurr Courr or Montcommry County, AnapaMa
Continuance or Motion—December 2, 1960
The Foregoing motion was presented to me on this the
d day of December, 1960, and it is hereby continued to
16 day of December, 1960, at 11 AM for hearing. Ex-
ution is hereby stayed by the Court during the pendency
fol. 2104] of this motion.
Walter B. Jones, Circuit Judge, 15th Judicial Cir-
euit of Alabama.
_ Certificate of service (omitted in printing).
ember 16, 1960. Motion Continued for Hearing at 10:00
M. Jan. 14, 1961.
Walter B. Jones, Judge.
[File endorsement omitted]
[fol. 2105]
Whereas, at the fall term, 1960, of the Cireuit Court of
Dy Cmovurr Courr or Monrcommry County, Atapama
| Montgomery County, of and for said County, on, to-wit:
the 3rd day of November, 1960, the said L. B. Sullivan re-
eovered a judgment in said Court against the New York
Times Company, et al. for the sum of Five Hundred Thou-
_ sand and No/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars, debt and damages,
. and the further sum of Five Hundred and No/100 ($500.00)
Dollars, the cost in that behalf expended; and whereas, on
this day the said The New York Times Company as such
defendant, has made application for an appeal from said
Judgment to the next term of the Supreme Court of Ala-
tama to be holden of and for said State, to reverse said
_ Judgment, and also for a supersedeas of the execution of
said judgment, which has been granted on entering into this
bond.
Court Met Pursuant to Adjournment
Present The Honorable Walter B. Jones, Judge Presiding
[Title omitted]
Ozaprr Conzinuine Motion ror New Tarar—
December 16, 1960
This day came the parties by attorneys and the motion
of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, to set aside the |
verdict of the jury and the judgment of the Court entered
thereon and to grant him a new trial herein, be and the same
is hereby continued until January 14, 1961 at 10:00 A. M.
Now, Therefore, the condition of the foregoing obligation
is such, that if the said The New York Times Company shall
prosecute its said appeal to effect, and satisfy such judg-
ment as the Supreme Court may render in this case, then
the said obligation to be null and void, otherwise to remain
© i full force and effect.
The New York Times Company, By: F. A. Cox,
Treasurer;
fol. 2106]
iy Circurr Covar or Mortcomzmry County, ALapama
Surerszpzss Bonp Fmzp sy tax New Yorx Tres Company |
anp Approvep Aper, 13, 1961
Know All Men by These Presents, That we the New Yor!
Times Company, a Corporation of the State of New York,
and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a Cor-
poration organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota
having its principal office in the City of St. Paul, State of |
Minnesota, and having an office and usual place of business §
in the Jackson Building, Birmingham 3, Alabama, are held
and firmly bound unto L. B. Sullivan in the sum of One
Million Five Hundred and No/100 ($1,000,500.00) Dollars, §
for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we
bind ourselves, and each of us, our heirs, executors and ad-
ministrators, jointly, severally and firmly by these presents, #
and as part of this undertaking we hereby waive all our
rights under the Constitution and Laws of the State of 4
Alabama, to have any of our property, real or personal,
exempt from levy and sale in satisfaction hereof.
qt with our seals, and dated this 7th day of April,
1961. :
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., By: Gordon
M. Earhuff, Attorney-in-fact;
A.B. Chapman, Alabama Resident Agent.
Approved: This 13th day of April, 1961.
John R, Matthews, Clerk.
7 : i 1. 2108]
[fol. 2107] [File endorsement omitted] te Cmourr Court or Mowtaoay County, Anasanta
In Cmourr Court or Montcomery County, AnaBama [Title omitted]
2 F
[Title omitted] Novice or Jouve my Arpnar-—Filed April 27, 1961
Come the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shut-
worth, S. S. Seay, Sr., and J. E. Lowery, in the above
led cause and give notice that the above named indi-
ual defendants hereby join in the appeal heretofore filed
April 12, 1961, by the co-defendant, The New York Times
aompany, a Corporation, appealing from the judgment of
Cireuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, ren-
red on November 3, 1960, and also from the ruling of
d Court that the individual defendants’ motion for a
‘ew Trial was no longer before the court because of the
eged failure to continue the motion for a new trial by
orneys for the individual defendants.
Charles S. Conley, 530 So. Union St., Montgomery
Noricu or Warr or Error—April 13, 1961
To Any Sheriff of the State of Alabama—Greeting:
You are hereby commanded to summon Steiner, Crum:
and Baker and Calvin Whitesell, Attorneys of Record of 4
L. B. Sullivan to appear at the next term of the Supreme
Court of said State, then and there to defend an appeals
which The New York Times Company, a corporation has
this day sued out, returnable to said court to reverse :
judgment which the said L. B. Sullivan at the Novembe
Term, 1960, of the Cireuit Court of Montgomery County,3
recovered against the said The New York Times Company,
@ corporation, Ralph D. Abernathy, J. E. Lowery, S. S,
Seay, Sr. and Fred L. Shuttlesworth for the sum of $500,
900.00—Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars, an 4, Alabama;
make immediate return of this Writ, etc. 3 Vernon Z. Crawford, 570 Davis Avenue, Mobile, Ala-
Witness, John BR. Matthews, Clerk of said Cireuit Court, 3 bama;
this 13 day of April, A. D., 1961. : Solomon S. Seay, Jr., 29 N. McDonough St., Mont-
John R. Matthews, Clerk. gomery, Alabama;
We hereby accept service of a copy of the within notice of :
appeal and waive further service of the same by the Sheriff. %
This 13 day of April, 1961.
Steiner, Crum & Baker, By: M. R. Nachman, Jr.
Calvin Whitesell.
Attorneys for Defendants, By: Charles S. Conley.
[File endorsement omitted]
es
[fol. 2109]
Ty Circurr Courr or Mowteomery Oounry, ALaBama
ol. 2110]
Ey Crrourr Courr or Monwrcomery County, ALapama
[Title omitted] On Appeal to Supreme Court of Alabama
Norics to Unire rx Arpeat—Filed April 27, 1961
To Any Sheriff of the State of Alabama—Greetings:
Whereas, the Defendant, The New York Times Company,
2 corporation, on the 13th day of April, 1961, has taken an
appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama from the judg-
ment rendered in this Court on, to-wit, the 8rd day of No- |
vember, 1960, in favor of L. B. Sullivan against The New |
York Times Company, a corporation, Ralph D. Abernathy,
J. E. Lowery, 8. 8. Seay, Sr., and Fred L. Shuttlesworth;
and
[Title omitted]
Certivicate or Apprat—December 14, 1961
I, John R. Matthews, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Mont-
‘gomery County, hereby certify that in said Court on the
“Sed day of November, 1960, in a trial before a jury, a ver-
@ict was rendered in favor of L. B. Sullivan and against
je The New York Times Company, a corporation, Ralph D.
= Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, S. 8. Seay, Sr. and J. E.
Lowery, for the sum of $500,000.00, and that judgment was
entered thereon against all of said parties for the sum of
000.00.
see certify that The New York Times Company,
'& corporation, filed its motion to set aside the verdict of
he jury and the judgment of the Court entered thereon
“and to grant it a new trial and that on the 17th day of
March, 1961, said motion for a new trial was overruled and
that on the 13th day of April, 1961, the said New York Times
Company, a corporation, gave notice of appeal from the
§udgment of said Court to the Supreme Court of Alabama
d did supersede said judgment by filing a Supersedeas
Sond with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company as
ety thereon, which said bond has been duly approved.
= Witness my hand and the seal of said Court is hereto
/afixed, this 14 day of April, 1961.
: John R. Matthews, Clerk, Circuit Court of Mont-
gomery County.
Whereas, said appeal has not been taken in the name of
the Defendants, Ralph D. Abernathy, J. B. Lowery, S. S.
Seay, Sr., and Fred L. Shuttlesworth and the aforesaid #
four individual Defendants have not joined in the appeal;
Now, Therefore, you are commanded to summon the said J
Ralph D. Abernathy, J. E. Lowery, S. S. Seay, Sr., and |
Fred L. Shuttlesworth to appear before the Supreme Court 4
of Alabama at the time to which the said appeal is return-
able and unite in said appeal if they see proper to do so.
‘Witness my hand this 27 day of April, 1961.
John R. Matthews, Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Thereby accept service of a copy of the above citation and @
waive further service by the Sheriff, this April 27, 1961. :
Charles S. Conley, As Attorney for defendants, Aber- 3
nathy, Seay, Lowery and Shuttlesworth.
[File endorsement omitted]
Wherefore Premises Considered this defendant moves
this Honorable Court to extend the time for filing of said
»transcript with the Clerk of the Cireuit Court of Mont-
gomery County.
Roderick M. MacLeod, Jr., Beddow, Embry & Bed-
dow, Attorneys for the defendant, The New York
Times Company.
[fol. 2110a]
Ty Cracurr Court or Monrcomery County, ALapama
[Title omitted]
Morton ror Exrension or Tore iv Warce ro Fue
Transcrier in Crrcurr Court—Filed June 8, 1961
Comes now the defendant, The New York Times Com-
pany, and shows unto this Honorable Court as follows:
1. This defendant, The New York Times Company, has a
heretofore taken an appeal in the above styled cause and [fol. 2110b]
in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Alabama 4 °
of 1940, the court reporter’s transcript of the proceedings
in said cause is due to be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit }
Court of Montgomery County on the 12th day of June, #
1961. ;
2. The proceedings which the said transcript covers were
lengthy and the transcript is voluminous and consists of
approximately two thousand pages.
3. On the 26th day of May, 1961, the court reporter
notified attorneys for this defendant that he had com-
pleted the said transcript and in accordance with that notifi-
cation, attorneys for this defendant had delivered to them a
copy of said transeript and since said transcript was de-
livered attorneys have been engaged in checking the tran-
script for accuracy and completeness but due to the size and 4
length of said transcript and due to attorneys for this
defendant being engaged in the trial of cases in various
courts in the State of Alabama, and engaged in the prepara-
tion of briefs for the Appellate Courts for the State of
Alabama, it will be impossible to check the transcript com-
pletely and thoroughly before the 12th day of June, 1961.
4. A complete and thorough check of the transcript be- 4
fore the date it is filed in this court will result in a sav- |
ing of the time of this court in that it may prevent the
necessity of filing exceptions to the transcript upon which 3
this court must rule. :
[File endorsement omitted]
iy Crcurr Court or Montcomery County, ALaBaMa
[Title omitted]
Onpzr on Motion ror Exrension or Trus—June 8, 1961
The motion of the defendant, The New York Times Com-
pany, for extension of time in which to file the transcript
in the above styled cause with the Clerk of the Cireuit Court
of Montgomery County, having been presented to the Court
and good cause being shown, it is therefore,
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the time for filing
the transcript in the above styled cause with the Clerk
of the Cireuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, is
hereby extended to and including the 26th day of June,
1961. It is understood that no further extension of time
for filing the transcript in the Clerk’s office will be moved
for or granted. Plaintiff duly and legally excepts to this
raling of the court.
This 8 day of June, 1961.
Walter B. Jones, Circuit Judge.
[File endorsement omitted]
Vol
[fol. 2110]
Ix Crrcurr Court or Montcomery County, ALapama
At Law.
‘ol. 2113]
iy rae Supreme Court or Anapama
No, ..----
[Title omitted] Tuiep Division
Scupunation as to Cuanczs, src. nv Recozp—June 23, 1961 New York Times Company, a Corporation, Appellant,
Comes now the Appellant, The New York Times Com-3 :
pany, and the Appellee by their respective Attorneys and_
stipulate that at any time after the Court Reporter’s Tran-
seript of the Proceedings in the above captioned cause is
filed in the Office of the Circuit Clerk and before it is filed §
in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Alabama, 4
either party may have the Court Reporter make changes, |
corrections or additions to the transcript and that in th
event the parties cannot agree as to what changes, addi- 4
tions or corrections should be made, either party may sub-
mit the matter to the Circuit Judge for determination just:
as if exceptions had been made to the transcript within 3
the ten day period after it is filed as prescribed by the
Code of Alabama. 3
This stipulation specifically applies but is not limited to 4
the insertion in the transcript of copies of four registered
mail return receipts introduced by the plaintiff-appellee 4
on the trial on the merits and numbered as Plaintifi’s Ex. 4
hibits Nos. 359, 360, 361, and 362.
This the 23rd day of June, 1961.
Roderick M. MacLeod; Steiner, Crum & Baker.
vs.
L. B. Sunrivan, Appellee.
fe Assienmenrs or Enon or Tor New Yorx Timus Company
Comes the Appellant, The New York Times Company,
eorporation in this cause and says there is manifest error
in the trial of this cause and manifest error in the record
ef the trial of this cause and as grounds for such error
s down and assigns the following, separately and sev-
= 1. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
Jadgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the Motion
af this defendant, as amended, to quash service of process
apon it in this case. (Tr. 40)
— 2. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
| jedgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defen-
nt’s Motion as amended to quash service of process upon
Don McKee as an alleged agent of this defendant. (Tr. 40)
8. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
dgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the Motion
amended of this defendant to quash service of process
pon it in holding in said order, judgment or decree that
s defendant had made a general appearance in this cause.
4. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
gment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defen-
Motion as amended to quash service of process upon
ad under the provisions of Title 7, Section 199(1), Code
[fol. 2111] Clerk’s Certificates to foregoing transcrip!
(omitted in printing).
of Alabama of 1940, and holding therein that service of
process on this defendant was valid under the provisions 3
of said Title 7, Section 199(1), Code of Alabama, 1940.
(Tr. 40)
5. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defen-
dant’s Motion as amended to quash service of process upon
it in holding in said order, judgment or decree that this 3
defendant was “doing business” in the State of Alabama.
[fol. 2114] (Tr. 40)
6. For that the trial court erred in its ruling that this |
defendant had the burden of going forward with the evi-
dence on its Motion to quash service of process upon it, j
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 186)
7. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de- :
fendant’s objection to the introduction in evidence of plain-
tiff’s exhibit No. 78, to which ruling of the trial court this
defendant duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 184) 4
8. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s demurrers and additional demurrers to plain- 3
tiff’s complaint. (Tr. 86) 3
9. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s demurrers as last amended to plaintiff's com- 4
plaint. (Tr. 86) 3
10. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s demurrers and additional demurrers to Count #
One of plaintiff’s complaint. (Tr. 86) =
11. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s demurrers as last amended to Count One of }
plaintifi’s complaint. (Tr. 86) 3
12. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de- |
fendant’s demurrers and additional demurrers to Count 4
Two of plaintiff’s complaint. (Tr. 86)
13. For that the trial court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s 3
demurrers to this defendant’s Plea Six. (Tr. 86) F
1039
14. For that the trial court erred in its ruling refusing
to allow this defendant to propound the following question
to the jury venire on voir dire:
“1. I will ask you, gentlemen, even though at the
close of this case that you may find a certain statement
contained in the advertisement made the basis of the
plaintiff’s complaint in this case in his cause of action
are not accurate or correct but the evidence discloses
that the advertisement did not refer to the plaintiff,
do you entertain any conviction, opinion, or predis-
position of mind which would compel you to return a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, or which would pre-
vent your returning a verdict in favor of the defen-
dant, The New York Times Company, a corporation?”
[fol. 2115] to which ruling this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 1694-95)
15. For that the trial court erred in its ruling refusing
to allow this defendant to propound the following question
E to the jury venire on voir dire:
“2. Have any of you gentlemen ever been a plaintiff
in a lawsuit in this Court any number of times, that is
to say, have you filed a suit seeking recovery of money
from another person, firm, or corporation?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1695)
16. For that the trial court erred in its ruling refusing
to allow this defendant to propound the following question
to the jury venire on voir dire:
“3, I will ask you, gentlemen, if at the close of the
evidence in this case and the evidence shows that The
New York Times Company was not actuated by malice
in publishing this paid advertisement, would you re-
fuse to award damages to punish The New York Times,
that is to say, would you refuse to award punitive
damages?”
o which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
‘Tr. 1695)
AUTL
“Q. Do the statements contained in that paragraph
associate themselves in your mind with any person
or group of persons?”
fo which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1734-35)
© 22. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
| fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, Arnold D. Blackwell:
“Q. Now, if you believed the statements in that para-
graph to be correct, Mr. Blackwell, and true, would
they affect your opinion of the Police Commissioner
in any way?”
17. For that the trial court erred in its ruling refusing 3
to allow this defendant to propound the following question
to the jury venire on voir dire:
“4. Is there any reason, without disclosing that rea-
son to me, that would tend to embarrass you, or em- 4
barrass you in any way, or cause you to hesitate to 4
return a verdict in favor of The New York Times Com-
pany, a corporation, in this case?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. —
(Tr. 1695) 3
18. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de- %
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded 4
by the plaintiff to the witness, Grover C. Hall, Jr.:
“Q. I will ask you, Mr. Hall, whether you associate :
the statements contained in that paragraph with any j
person or persons?” 3
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. J
(Tr. 1723) q
19. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de- |
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded 4
by the plaintiff to the witness, Grover OC. Hall, Jr.:
“Q. Referring to the statements contained in the
paragraph of the ad to which I referred you, do you 3
associate those statements with any person or per- 9
sons?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. &
(Tr. 1724) .
20. For that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the
[fol. 2116] defendant to inquire on voir dire into the com- 4
petency of the witness, Arnold D. Blackwell, to testify, to 4
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 4
1733-34)
21. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de- 4
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, Arnold D. Blackwell:
_ to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1736)
23. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
. fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, Arnold D. Blackwell:
“Q. ... I ask you there whether those statements
associate themselves in your mind with any person or
persons.”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
‘Tr. 1737)
24, For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
y the plaintiff to the witness, William H. MacDonald:
“Q. Now, going back to March 6th of this year, 1960,
Mr. MacDonald, did you have occasion to observe a
demonstration or a near riot that took place on Dexter
Avenue on Sunday, March 6th?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1748-49)
25. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
endant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Harry W. Kaminsky:
LVio
“Q. Now, Mr. Kaminsky, do you associate the state- 2
ments and material contained in that paragraph that
T have just showed you with any person or persons?” |
“T don’t think there is any question about what I
would decide. I think I would decide that we probably
had a young Gestapo in Montgomery.”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1766)
30. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
endant’s objection to the following question propounded
‘by the plaintiff to the witness, William M. Parker, Jr.:
“Q. Mr. Parker, do you associate those statements
contained in those paragraphs with any person or per-
sons that you know or are acquainted with?”
to which ruling defendant duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 3
1755) S
[fol. 2117] 26. For that the trial court erred in overruling |
this defendant’s objection to the following question pro-
pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Harry W. Kamin-
sky:
“Q. If you believed the statements contained in that
paragraph to be correct, Mr. Kaminsky, would that
affect in any way your opinion of the Police Commis-
sioner?” to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
Tr. 1770-71)
31. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
endant’s objection to the following question propounded
fol. 2118] by the plaintiff to the witness, William M.
arker, Jr.:
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. 3
(Tr. 1755) 3
27. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, H. M. Price, Sr.:
“Q. Mr. Price, did it—when you read the statements
contained in those two paragraphs, do they associate 4
themselves in your mind with any person? Those state- 4
ments of events?” 3
“Q. Mr. Parker, on the assumption that you believed
those to be true, whether you do or not, but if you
did believe them to be true, the statements I have just
read, would that affect your opinion of Mr. Sullivan,
and if so, state how.”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
1771)
32. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ndant’s objection to the following question propounded
y the plaintiff to the witness, Horace W. White:
“Q. Did it mean any particular person or persons
to you?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1785)
33. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
dant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Horace W. White:
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. 4
(Tr. 1765-66) ;
28. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s objection to the folowing question propounded #
by the plaintiff to the witness, H. M. Price:
“Q. Mr. Price, if you believed the statements con-
tained in those two paragraphs to be true, regardless #4
of whether you think them to be true, if you believed |
them to be true, would that affect your opinion of
Mr. Sullivan—?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally exeepte
(Tr. 1766)
29. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
fendant’s Motion to strike the following answer of plain-
tiff’s witness, H. M. Price, Sr.:
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
-. 1803)
38. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ndant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, John R. Matthews:
“Q. Mr. Matthews, do you know of your own knowl-
edge whether Martin Luther King, Jr., was acquitted
by a jury in this County on a charge of falsifying his
income tax return?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
03)
“Q, I will ask you this. If you believe—not saying
that you believe or do not believe—but if you believed,
the material in those paragraphs in this ad, woul
that affeet your opinion of Mr. L. B. Sullivan?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1785)
34, For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-4
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded §
by the plaintiff to the witness, Horace W. White: 3
“Q. In what manner would it affect your opinion?” ‘
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1786)
35. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de- :
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded §
by the plaintiff to the witness, Horace W. White: ’
“Q. But if you believed the material stated in this%
ad, would that affect his re-employment?” 3
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted g
(Tr. 1786) q
36. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-§
fendant’s objection to the following question propounde
by the plaintiff to the witness, John R. Matthews:
“Q. Now, where is the first entry in your books which4
indicated a charge in connection with the incident on q
March 8th?” 4
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. 4
(Tr. 1797-98)
[fol 2119] 37. For that the trial court erred in overruling @
this defendant’s objection to the following question pro-!
pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, John R. Matthews:
“Q. Mr. Matthews, do you know of your own knowl-'®
edge whether there were any other cases in this Court
and by this Court I mean the Circuit Court of Mont?
gomery County, Alabama, involving charges arising4
out of that demonstration on March 8th?”
39. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ndant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, E. Y. Lacy:
“Q. In the course of your duties, Lt. Lacy, did you
have occasion to investigate a bombing which took place
in the home of Martin Luther King, Jr., in Mont-
gomery, Alabama?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1807)
40. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
endant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, O. M. Strickland:
“Q. As connected with the arrest of Martin Luther
King, Jr., and state what the circumstances were and
what happened on that occasion in your own words.”
@ which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
1814)
41. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
nt’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, O. M. Strickland:
“Q. Officer, did you or anyone in your presence on
this occasion assault the person of Martin Luther King,
drt”
LU+0 LUST
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1816)
42. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de@
[fol. 2120] fendant’s objection to the following question pro-%
pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Frank R. Stewart:%
“Q. Would you state the circumstances of the ex-3
pulsion of nine students from Alabama State College 4
by the State Board of Education?” 4
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. 3
(Tr. 1819)
43. For that the trial court erred in overruling this d
fendant’s objection to the admission into evidence of plain-%
tiff’s Exhibit No. 364, to;which ruling this defendant duly |
and legally excepted. (Tr. 1820-23) 3
44, For that the trial court erred in overruling this de
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, Frank R. Stewart: E
“Q. Now, Doctor, I want to read one sentence to you.
and ask you whether it is true. ‘In Montgomery, Ala-¥
bama, after students sang “My Country Tis of Thee” #
on the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled g
from school.’ ”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted §
(Tr. 1823-24)
45. For that the trial court erred in overruling this di
fendant’s objection to the admission into evidence of plain-
tiff’s Exhibit No. 365, to which ruling this defendant duly 4
and legally excepted. (Tr. 1825-26)
46. For that the trial court erred in overruling this d
fendant’s objection to the following question propounde
by the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan: .
“Q. I call your attention, Mr. Sullivan, to the third}
paragraph in the left hand column of this ad which@
reads as follows: ‘In Montgomery, Alabama, after4
students sang “My Country Tis of Thee” on the State:
Capitol steps their leaders were expelled from schools
- end truck loads of police armed with shotguns and
tear gas ringed the Alabama State College campus.’
I ask you if that statement is true or false.”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1829)
“. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
nt’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Now, Mr. Sullivan, I call your attention to the
next sentence in that same paragraph which reads
as follows: ‘When the entire student body protested to
State authorities by refusing to re-register, their din-
ing hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them
[fol. 2121] into submission.’ Is that statement true or
false?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
1830)
48. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ant’s motion to strike the following testimony of the
ntiff, L. B. Sullivan:
“False, in my opinion it has never happened here
in the State of Alabama.”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1830)
49. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
t’s objection to the following question propounded by
plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Is that true or false?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
50. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ni’s objection to the following question propounded by
plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. ... I ask you whether the Police Department
has, during your term of office, or at any other time
LUt7
within your knowledge, bombed Dr. King’s home org
b ty to it sonal wurh’aelion®® which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
een a party to it or condoned such action?
. 1834)
&5. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ant’s motion to strike the following testimony of the
tiff, L. B. Sullivan:
“My testimony during the trial was along the lines
in response to the question as to whether or not Dr.
King could receive a fair trial here in Montgomery.”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1836)
56. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
dant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Mr. Sullivan, do you consider the statements
that I have just read you from this ad, plaintiff’s Ex-
hibit No. 347, refer to you and are associated with
you?”
2 which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
King on a charge of violating income tax laws of the gis . 1836)
State of Alabama?” ;
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1833) :
53. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-3
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded by; these statements?”
[fol. 2122] the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan: 4 which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
“Q. Did you testify in that case either before the; . 1837)
Grand Jury which indicted him, or before the petty§
jury which tried him?” a
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.;
(Tr. 1833) a
54. For that the trial court erred in overruling thisg
defendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Did you testify with regard to the guilt or inno¥
cence of the defendant?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.g
(Tr. 1831)
51. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-g
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Now, I ask you, Mr. Sullivan, whether to your?
kmowledge, it is accurate that they have arrested himg
seven times—for speeding, loitering and similar of-4
fenses?” 3
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr, 1832) :
52. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-j
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded by#
the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Mr. Sullivan, did you have anything at all to,
‘87. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
is objection to the following question propounded.
‘the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Do you feel that you have been damaged by
§8 For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
udant’s motion to strike the following testimony of the
ff, L. B. Sullivan:
“As a part of the responsibility of the Police Com-
and the Cc Public Affairs it is
our responsibility to maintain i and order here in
. Montgomery whether it is at the campus or elsewhere.
. As far as the expulsion of the students is concerned
that responsibility rests with the State Department of
Education.”
ivolL
Now, does your testimony, I take it as a man with over
twenty years of experience in reading ads with am-
biguous words that the word ‘after’ means only after
in terms of time and has no cause and effect connota-
tion at law.”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1868-69)
&. For that the trial court erred in making the following
itement with reference to the witness, Gershon T. Aron-
in the presence and hearing of the jury:
[fol. 2123] to which ruling this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 1841) . 3
59. For that the trial court erred in overruling this deJ
fendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s evidence in this:
ease and in the alternative, this defendant’s motion for
directed verdict, to which ruling this defendant duly andy
legally excepted. (Tr. 1853) :
60. For that the trial court erred in overruling this deg
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded b
the plaintiff to the witness, Gershon T. Aronson:
“Q. On what basis did you satisfy yourself that hel
was giving you accurate information about the pern
sion to use the names?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1864)
61. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded br
the plaintiff to the witness, Gershon T. Aronson:
“Q. Do you consider that the statement he has iq
this letter which is identified as Exhibit B attached ta
the interrogatories which Mr. Embry showed to yo:
and I will quote from it, ‘Please be assured that the
have all given us permission to use their names i
furthering the work of our Committee’ Do you con
sider that as being authorization to put their name
on an ad which is to appear in a national publication?
“Well, of course, it probably will be a question for
the jury, but this gentleman here is a very high official
of the Times and I should think he can testify...”
2124] to which statement of the Court this defendant
y and legally objected and excepted. (Tr. 1869)
‘64. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
nt’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Gershon T. Aronson:
“Q. And that the same people are ‘they’ throughout.
Ts that it?”
eras ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1870)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ant’s objection to the following question propounded.
the plaintiff to the witness, Gershon T. Aronson:
“Q. But it is sufficiently unclear so that you cannot
today give a clear answer as to what it means, isn’t it?”
} which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1871)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
nt’s objection to the following question propounded
plaintiff to the witness, Gershon T. Aronson:
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepte
(Tr. 1864)
62. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded bys
the plaintiff to the witness, Gershon T. Aronson: 4
Capitol steps their leaders were expelled from schot
and truck loads of police armed with shotguns andi
tear gas ringed the Alabama State College Campu
“Q. I would like you to tell us if you can, Mr. Aron-
son, whether that ad—the ad was handed to you on
March 23rd and which was published on March 29th,
|
|
|
:
1004 1053
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
nt’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Harding Bancroft:
“Q. Is it now the position of The New York Times
that with the exception of the statement that ‘the diniig
hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into
submission’ that the other statements in the ad that
we complain about in this complaint are ‘substantially
correct’ to use the phrase in this letter?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1908)
1. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ni’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Harding Bancroft:
“Q. Now, referring to Exhibit C im the letter de-
manding a retraction, there are two paragraphs in
the ad which are quoted and it is stated in the letter
that those are false and defamatory. Then, referring
to Exhibit D, your attorneys wrote back and they said
that the statements following their investigation—that
the statements ‘are substantially correct with the sole
exception that we find no justification for the statement
that the dining hall of the State College was padlocked
in an attempt to starve them into submission.’ Now
what I want to know, sir, is simply this, is it still the
position of The New York Times that with one ex-
ception that the statements are substantially correct?”
contained superlative words or phrases as you hay
just used the term?” :
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted}
(Tr. 1874) 4
67. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, Gershon T. Aronson:
“Q. I call your attention now to this paragraph whicha
I will read to you. ‘If any advertiser makes inaccurateg
or misleading statements and refuses to correet the
the advertising is declined. Further if The Times
eeives complaints from its readers which, upon
vestigation, convince the Advertising Acceptability
partment that the business practices of the firm areg
unfair or open to question, the Times declines further
announcements of that firm.’”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted
(Tr, 1875)
68. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded byw
the plaintiff to the witness, D. Vincent Redding: 3
“Q. Did you consider that those people were suf
ficiently familiar with the events in Montgomery, Alag
bama, purportedly described in that ad so that you
[fol. 2125] could rely on what was contained in the
about Montgomery?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1889) s
69. For that the trial court erred in overruling this deg
fendant’s objection io the following question propounded b
the plaintiff to the witness, Harding Bancroft:
Q. But no check was made into the statement
contained in the ad prior to its publication. Is
correct?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
. 1909)
2. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de-
ani’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Harding Bancroft:
“Q. Then you would change it to that extent that
you are now uncertain as to whether it is substantially
eorrect. Is that your testimony?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepte 2
4 1910)
(Tr. 1907)
105.
which portion of such oral charge of the Court this de
adant duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1951 and 1956)
77. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge t
jury wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows
“We can say as part of the law in this case that :
publication is libelous per se when they are such as tc
degrade the plaintiff in the estimation of his friend:
: ; and the people of the place where he lives, as injure
whether those statements are substantially correct. him in his public office, or impute misconduct to him
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. in his office, or want of official integrity, or want of
(Tr. 1910) s | fidelity to a public trust, or such as will subject the
a e x inti idi lie distrust.”
74. For that the trial court erred in overruling this de: Plaintiff to ndienle or public distrust,
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded fol. 2127] to which portion of such oral charge of the Court
by the plaintiff to the witness, Harding Bancroft: q s defendant duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1952 and
“Q. What does the New York Times say? They are )
one of the defendants in this case. Does the Times say$
it is substantially correct or not?” q
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.3
(Tr. 1911-12) :
75. For that the trial court erred in overruling this deg
fendant’s objection to the following question propounded}
by the plaintiff to the witness, Harding Bancroft:
“Q. The question is whether the New York Times#e
says that these matters with the exception of the pad-
locking statement—does the Times say that they areg
true or does the Times say that they are false?”
{fol. 2126] 73. For that the trial court erred in overruling
this defendant’s objection to the following question prog
pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Harding Bancroft
“Q. The question was that there has been a change}
in that the position of the Times since April 15, 1960,
namely, that at that time they said these other state
ments are ‘substantially correct? and now you say
on behalf of the Times that the Times is uncerti
78. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge to
jury wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows:
“So, as I said, if you are reasonably satisfied from
the evidence before you, considered in connection with
the rules of law the Court has stated to you, you would
come to consider the question of damages, and, where
as here, the Court has ruled the matter complained of
proved to your reasonable satisfaction and aimed at
the plaintiff in this case, is libelous per se, then punitive
damages may be awarded by the jury even though the
amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown.”
hich portion of such oral charge of the Court this de-
nt duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1953 and 1957)
79. For that the trial court erred in its order, judgment,
decree overruling this defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Pr. 2057 D)
E80. For that the trial court erred in denying this defen-
jpent’s motion for a new trial. (Tr. 2057 D)
For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
gment or decree denying this defendant’s motion for a
trial. (Tr. 2057D)
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. ge
(Tr. 1912)
76. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge to
the jury wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows:
“Now the Court is of the opinion and so charges you,s
gentlemen of the jury, that the matter complained of
in plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 347, that’s the controversialg
ad which you will have before you, and parts of which
are set out in the Counts here in the Complaint, belongs
to that class of defamation called in law, libel per se.”%
avuv
82. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com.
pany, a corporation:
“T4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that th
advertisement complained of in plaintiff’s complaint is 4
not libelous per se, that is to say, the same is not libel 9
ous as a matter of law.” Refused, Jones Judge (Tr.
1957K)
83. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give thes
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at§
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
pany, a corporation:
“T.9. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the:
advertisement complained of in plaintiffs complaint is!
not libelous as a matter of law, and if, after reading g
that advertisement, you find that it was not degrading
and would not tend to injure the plaintiff’s reputation, 3
then I further charge you that such advertisement is}
not in fact libelous and in that event your verdict must
be for the defendant, The New York Times Company,:
a corporation.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 K)t
84. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at}
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-§
pany, a corporation:
[fol. 2128] “1.3. I charge you, gentlemen of the jur,
that if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence
that the publication complained of by plaintiff in his}
complaint is false, then I further charge you that not
every false publication is libelous as a matter of law,3
and that to make such publication libelous you must®
further find from the evidence that by reading such!
publication and giving to the words contained thereing
their natural and ordinary meaning, that the same is
degrading, and would tend to injury the plaintiff’
reputation by imputing to him some incapacity or lack
of due qualification to fill the public office held by
plaintiff or by imputing to him some positive past mis-
= eonduct which injuriously affects him in his public office
or the holding of principles which are hostile to the
maintenance of government.” Refused, Jones Judge.
(Tr. 1957 K)
$3. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
owing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
any, a corporation:
“T.4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the
publication complained of by plaintiff in his complaint
is false, then I further charge you that not every false
publication is libelous as a matter of law, and that to
make such publication libelous you must further find
from the evidence that by reading such publication and
giving to the words contained therein their natural and
ordinary meaning that the same is degrading and would
tend to injure the plaintiff’s reputation by imputing
gross negligence, dishonesty or other impropriety in
the discharge of his official duties.” Refused, Jones
Judge. (Tr. 1957 K)
86. For that the trial court erred in refusing lo give the
Howing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
¥, a corporation:
“T.5. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that in
determining whether the advertisement complained of
in plaintiff’s complaint was libelous per se or libelous
as a matter of law, you must find from the evidence
that damage to plaintiff’s reputation would follow as
a natural and probable result of the publication of
said advertisement, and in this connection it must he
kept in mind that the damage claimed and with which
you, the jury, are primarily concerned is injury to the
reputation; and I further charge you that in the ab-
sence of such injury, even if you find from the evidence
that the advertisement caused plaintiff notoriety and
tye
embarrassment, your verdict must be for the defendani
The New York Times Company, a corporation.” RB
fused, Jones, Judge. (Tr. 1057 L)
87. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give thes
following written instruction to the jury in this cause atg
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com.
pany, a corporation:
“T.8. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that there¥
is no evidence in this case that plaintiff has sustained:
any substantial damage, and I further charge you that3
in the event you find the issues in favor of the plaintiff.
[fol. 2129] your verdict should be for nominal damages}
only.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 L)
88. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the®
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at?
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com
pany, a corporation: 2
“T.9. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that i
in your consideration of this case under the evidence,
you arrive at a consideration of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, then I
further charge you that under the law your award for
such compensatory damages should be such damages
as you find from the evidence were directly and proxi-#
mately caused to the plaintiff by the publication of the
advertisement sued upon insofar as such advertisement
related to the plaintiff.” Refused, Jones Judge (Tr.
1957 L) 4
89. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-@
pany, a corporation: 3
“T.10. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if you
find from the evidence that the advertisement com-
plained of in plaintiff’s complaint concerned the plain-
tiff, and if you further find from the evidence that such ¥
advertisement injured the plaintiffs feelings, but did 4
not and could not injure his reputation, then I charg<
you that your verdict must be for the defendant, The
New York Times Company, a corporation.” Refused
Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 L)
$0. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give th:
sllowing written instruction to the jury in this cause al
request of this defendant, The New York Times Com
BY, a corporation:
“T.11. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that be-
fore you are authorized to award substantial compensa
tory damages to the plaintiff, you must find from th«
evidence in this case that the plaintiff suffered substan-
tial injury as a result of the publication by the defen
dant, The New York Times Company, a corporation.
of the advertisement complained of by plaintiff in hi-
complaint.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 L—1957
M)
91. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
plowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
Ry, a corporation:
“7.15. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if you
find from all the evidence that the advertisement com-
plained of by the plaintiff was libelous per se but that
plaintiff has sustained no actual injury, then I charge
you that your verdict may be for nominal damages.”
Refused, Jones Judge (Tr. 1957 M)
92. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
glowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
fol. 2130] the request of this defendant, The New York
fimes Company, a corporation:
“7.16. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if you
should find from all the evidence that the advertisement
eomplained of by plaintiff was libelous per se but that
plaintiff has sustained no actual injury in his office.
profession, trade or business by reason of the publi-
eation of the advertisement complained of in plaintifi’s
: complaint, then I further charge you that your verdict
ubU AuuL
& verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corporation,
in this case under Count One of plaintiffs complaint.”
Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 M-1957 N)
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
ewing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
equest of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
By, 2 corporation:
ffol. 2131] “1.24. I charge you, gentlemen of the
jury, that if you believe the evidence in this case you
eannot find a verdict m favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant, The New York Times Company,
. @ corporation, in this case under Count One of plain-
tiffs complaint as last amended.” Refused, Jones
Judge. (Tr. 1957 N)
7. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
ng written instruction to the jury in this eause at
request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
Ey, a corporation:
may be for nominal damages.” Refused, Jones Judge.
(Tr. 1957 M)
93. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the @
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-* q
pany, a corporation:
“P18. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, thatg
punitive damages, as the name indicates, are designed §
to punish the defendant, the New York Times Company, §
a corporation, and the other defendants in this case, g
for the publication of the advertisement complained of
and I further charge you that punitive damages may
be awarded only in the event that you, the jury, are @
convinced by a fair preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant, the New York Times Company, a cor-4
poration, in publishing the matter complained of was @
motivated by personal ill will, that is actual intent to:
do the plaintiff harm, or that the defendant, The New§
York Times Company, a corporation, was guilty ofg
gross negligence and recklessness and not of just ordi-@
nary negligence or carelessness in publishing the matter 4
complained of so as to indicate a wanton disregard of4
plaintiff’s rights.” Refused, Jones Judge (Tr. 1957 M) ;
94, For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the |
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
pany, a corporation:
“7.25. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
you believe the evidence in this case you cannot find
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corpora-
tion, in this case under Count Two of plaintiff’s com-
plaint.” Refused, Jones Judge (Tr. 1957 N)
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
ny, a corporation:
“T, 22. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that iff
you believe the evidence in this case, you cannot findg
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-%
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corpora-
tion.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 M) 7
95. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at?
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com
pany, a corporation:
“T. 26. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
you believe the evidence in this case your verdict must
be for the defendant, The New York Times Company,
a corporation.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 N)
‘99. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
Bowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
. request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
“T, 23. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that , &@ corporation:
if you believe the evidence in this case you cannot find
duu 1063
“7, 27. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if you
believe the evidence in this case your verdict must be
for the defendant, The New York Times Company, a§
corporation, under Count One of the complaint.” Reg
fused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 N) 3
100. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at}
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com- :
pany, a corporation: 7
trade, business, or profession, in which case the words
used in the advertisement complained of would not be
libelous.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 N-1957 0)
103. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
‘ollowing written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
BY, 2 corporation:
“T, 46. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
you believe the evidence you cannot return a verdict
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the
New York Times Company, a corporation, for com-
pensatory damages.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr.
1957 O)
04. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of this defendant, The New York Times
mpany, a corporation:
“7, 28. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if you}
believe the evidence in this case your verdict must ¥
be for the defendant, The New York Times Company, 4
a corporation, under Count Two of the complaint.” 3
Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 N) F
101. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give a
the following written instruction to the jury in this cause?
at the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-2
pany, a corporation: “T. 47. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
there has been no evidence introduced of any actual
damage to the plaintiff.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr.
1957 Q)
(65. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
owing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
¥, @ corporation:
“T. 35. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that#
there is no evidence in this case from which it appears ™
that the plaintiff was referred to in the advertisement |
published by defendant New York Times Company and 4
therefore your verdict must be for the defendant New
York Times Company.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr.
1957 N) :
[fol. 2132] 102. For that the trial court erred in refusing |
to give the following written instruction to the jury in this #
cause at the request of this defendant, The New York Times 7
Company, a corporation:
“T.48. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
there has been no evidence introduced upon which a
verdict for compensatory damages could be based.”
Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 0)
06. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
he request of this defendant, The New York Times Com-
¥, @ corporation:
“1.36. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that:
the words complained of by the plaintiff in his com- F
plaint in the advertisement published by the defendant
New York Times Company in its newspaper must be
considered in connection with the facts and circum-§
stances in reference to which the words were used; and J
I further charge you that these facts and circumstances ¥
may take from the words any import of reflection on¥
the ability and integrity of the plaintiff in his office,§
“T.59. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
if you return a verdict for the plaintiff and assess
damages against one or more of the defendants, you
tv0s Ludo
412. For that the trial court erred in entering its final
must specify in your verdict what part of the damages:
peel ain ce e @gment against this defendant in this cause. (Tr. 1958)
are compensatory and what part of the damages a:
punitive as to each defendant against whom a verdi
is returned.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 O)
107. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the:
[fol. 2133] following written instruction to the jury in this
cause at the request of this defendant, The New York!
Times Company, a corporation:
113. For that the trial court erred in entering its final
ment of November 3, 1960, in favor of plaintiff and
ust this defendant in this cause. (Tr. 1958)
ii4. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
fendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 79, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
cepted. (Tr. 197)
115. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 80, to which
g of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 197)
2134] 116. For that the trial court erred in overrul-
this defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the
oduction in evidence of, plaintiffs Exhibit No. 81, to
h ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and
ally excepted. (Tr. 197)
7. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
fendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
‘on in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 82, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 197)
8. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
tion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 83, to which
img of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 197)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling thix
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
tion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 84, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pied. (Tr. 197)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
“7.60. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, thatg
if you believe from all the evidence in this case that§
the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against oneg
or more of the defendants in this case you may in yourd
discretion, put your verdict as to such damages, if any,
in the form of special findings; that is to say you mays
assess any punitive or compensatory damages sepa-g
rately, indicating in what amount each kind of damage’
is found and as to which defendant, if any, it is soa
found.” Refused, Judge Jones. (Tr. 1957 0)
108. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give thes
following written instruction to the jury in this cause a 5
the request of this defendant, The New York Times Com4
pany, a corporation: 3
“T, 63. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that ifg
you find from all the evidence that the plaintiff is en¥
titled to punitive damages from one or more of thet
defendants but not from one or more of the other d
fendants you must return a verdict in favor of all th
defendants.” Refused, Jones Judge. (Tr. 1957 O)
109. For that the trial court erred in entering its judg
ment in behalf of plaintiff in this cause. (Tr. 1958) F
110. For that the trial court erred in entering its fi
judgment of November 3, 1960, in favor of plaintiff an
against this defendant in this cause. (Tr. 1958)
111. For that the trial court erred in entering its jude@
ment of November 3, 1960, based upon the verdict of th
jury in this cause, in favor of plaintiff and against thi
defendant. (Tr. 1958)
1066 / 1067
duction in evidence of, plaintiffs Exhibit No. 85, to which
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 198)
121. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 86, to which 4
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally @
excepted. (Tr. 198)
122. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 87, to which
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally 4
excepted. (Tr. 198)
123. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro- 4%
i duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 88, to which
' ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally ;
excepted. (Tr. 198)
124, For that the trial court erred in overruling this a
defendant’s objections to and thereby allowing the intro-
(fol. 2185] duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 89,
to which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and
legally excepted. (Tr. 198)
125. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 90, to which
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally 2
excepted. (Tr. 198) 3
126. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-4@
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 91, to which
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 201) 3
127. For that the trial court erred in overruling thisg
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 92, to which@
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally%
excepted. (Tr. 204) a
128. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
‘endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 93, to which
g of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 205)
129. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
Gefendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 94, to which
aling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (‘Tr. 206)
130. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
faction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 136, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ted. (Tr. 248)
31. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
lxction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 138, to which
roling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 250)
_ 132. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
‘endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 174, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 264)
ol. 2136] 133. For that the trial court erred in over-
ling this defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing
me introduction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 175,
= which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and
ally excepted. (Tr. 265)
134. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
fendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 176, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 269)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
Lvs tv07
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 193, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 281)
44. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
tion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 194, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ted. (Tr. 281)
45. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
m in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 195, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ted. (Tr. 281)
46. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 185, to whic
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legal
excepted. (Tr. 281)
136. For that the trial court erred in overruling th
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro,
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 186, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg:
excepted. (Tr. 281)
137. For that the trial court erred in overruling thisg
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the introg
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 187, to whidy
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legal
excepted. (Tr. 281)
188. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intre
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 188, to wl
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg: n > end’ y 3 x
excepted. (Tr. 281) on in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 196, to which
. . . ; ag of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
139. For that the trial court erred in overruling th epted. (Tr. 281)
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the im
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 189, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg
excepted. (Tr. 281)
140. For that the trial court erred in overruling thi
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the introg
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 190, to whick
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg:
excepted. (Tr. 281)
141. For that the trial court erred in overruling th
defendani’s objections to, and thereby allowing the int
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 191, to wl
[fol. 2137] ruling of the trial court this defendant duly ani
legally excepted. (Tr. 281)
142. For that the trial court erred in overruling th
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the int:
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 192, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legallg
excepted. (Tr. 281) :
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
lant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
Jon in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 197, to which
ug of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ted. (Tr. 281)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
Gon in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 198, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ed. (Tr. 281)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
‘on in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 199, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pied. (Tr. 281) ,
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
138] defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing
LuiU
ae
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
sndant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 207, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pied. (Tr. 281)
2139] 159. For that the trial court erred in over-
ng this defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 208,
ich ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and
ly excepted. (Tr. 281)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
nd 's objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
jon in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 209, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
spied. (Tr. 281)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
udant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
fon in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 210, to which
g of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ed. (Tr. 281) :
62. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ada at’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
on in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 211, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ted. (Tr. 281) .
8. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
nda nt’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion nen of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 212, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pied. ('Tr. 281) y “es
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ndant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
D vey of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 213, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and 1
ed. (Tr. 281) y eae
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
the introduction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 200
to which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and
legally excepted. (Tr. 281)
151. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the inti
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 201, to whic
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 281)
152. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 201, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legalh
excepted. (Tr. 281)
153. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the introg
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 202, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legalh
excepted. (Tr. 281)
154. For that the trial court erred in overruling thi
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intre
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 203, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and lega
excepied. (Tr. 281)
155. For that the trial court erred in overruling thi
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro:
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 204, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg:
excepted. (Tr. 281)
156. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intre
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 205, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 281)
157. For that the trial court erred in overruling thi
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the int
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 206, to whid
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg
excepted. (Tr. 281)
AVG
L075
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 214, to wh
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le; ant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
excepted. (Tr. 281) ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 222, to which
166. For that the trial court erred in overruling + a ie en this defendant duly and legally
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the int qT.
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 215, to wh 4. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
excepted. (Tr. 281) etion in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 223, to which
° i i fe :
167. For that the trial court erred in overruling ey He oy court this defendant duly and legally
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the int : * .
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 216, to whi » For that the trial court erred in overruling this
[fol. 2140] ruling of the trial court this defendant duly ang Egendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
legally excepted. (Tr. 281) ction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 224, to which
168. For that the trial court erred in overruling i cs Gay this defendant duly and legally
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the in .
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 217, to whid 76. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le fendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
excepted. (Tr. 281) §. 2141] duction in evidence of plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 225,
169. For that the trial court erred in overruling @ pehich ruling, wes © Boe court this defendant duly and
defendant's objections to, and thereby allowing the in y DEE: .
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 218, to wh 77. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legal endant’s objectious tv, and thereby allowing the intro-
excepted. (Tr. 281) etion in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 226, to which
peng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 281)
78. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
faction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 227, to which
ing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 281)
79. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
170. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the int:
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 219, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le
excepted. (Tr. 281)
171. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the int
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit 220, to whidg
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and lega
excepted. (Tr. 281)
172. For that the trial court erred in overruling 1
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intr
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 221, to wh
tuling of the trial court this defendant duly and le;
excepted. (Tr. 281)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
lute ae
188. For that the trial court erred in overruling thi:
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
action in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 242, to whic
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legalls
‘excepted. (Tr. 372)
189. For that the trial court erred in overruling thir
Asfendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
netion in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 243, to whic!
‘veling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
excepted. (Tr. 372)
190. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
taction in evidence of, plaintiff’ 's Exhibit No. 244, to whicl
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 372)
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 229, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legalh
excepted. (Tr. 281)
181. For that the trial court erred in overruling #
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-§
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 230, to whic
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legalh
excepted. (Tr. 281)
182. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to; and thereby allowing the intr
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 231, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le;
excepted. (Tr. 281)
183. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intr
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 232, to whidi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le;
excepted. (Tr. 281)
184. For that the trial court erred in overruling th
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro§
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 237, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legualh
excepted. (Tr. 289)
[fol 2142] 185. For that the trial court erred in over.
ruling this defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowi
the introduction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No.
to which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly
legally excepted. (Tr. 291)
186. For that the trial court erred in overruling thig
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intrg ¢
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 240, to whig
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le
excepted. (Tr. 372)
187. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the inte
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 241, to wi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and lega
excepted. (Tr. 372)
i endant’s tectione i to, and thereby diowox the me
ion in evidence of, plaintif?” 's Exhibit No. 245, to which
sling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 372)
192. For that the trial court erred in overruling thir
‘endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
jon in evidence of, plaintif’s Exhibit No. 246, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
seepted. (Tr. 372)
193. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
gfendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intr
i. 2143] duction in evidence of. plaintiff's Exhibit No.
j which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly
iy excepted. (Tr. 3
For that the i court erred in overruling thix
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
jon in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 248, to which
g of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pted. (Tr. 372)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
LUtU
LUCE
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 249, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legal
excepted. (Tr. 372)
196. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intr
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 250, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legall;
excepted. (Tr. 372)
197. For that the trial court erred in overruling this:
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intr
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 251, to which@
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally:
excepted. (Tr. 372)
198. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-g
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 252, to which
-203. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
getion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 257, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ted. (Tr. 372)
204. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
tion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 258, to which
g of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ceepted. (Tr. 372)
295. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
fendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 259, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
sted. (Tr. 372)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
tion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 260, to which
2 of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pied. (Tr. 372)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
fendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
excepted. (Tr. 372)
199. For that the trial court erred in overruling this.
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-§
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 253, to which:
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legal
excepted. (Tr. 372) tion in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 261, to which
200. For that the trial court erred in overruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro. cepted. (Tr. 372)
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 254, to which Slee. 908. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally? efendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the “ntt6-
excepted. (Tr. 372) 3 tion in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 262, to which
201. For that the trial court erred in overruling thisy Hing of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-3 pted. (Tr. 372)
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 255, to which@ 209. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
excepted. (Tr. 372) tion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 263, to which
[fol. 2144] 202. For that the trial court erred in over. ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ruling this defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowin; ted. (Tr. 372)
the introduction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 2 0. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
to which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly andi dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
legally excepted. (Tr. 372)
Bl sccerctnimanenemann men
IIs
218. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
Faction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 321, to which
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 264, to wl
[fol. 2145] ruling of the trial court this defendant duh
legally excepted. (Tr. 372)
211. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the in
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 265, to wh
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le;
excepted. (Tr. 372)
212. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intres
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 310, to whig
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le;
excepted. (Tr. 487)
213. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the in’
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 316, to wl
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and 1
excepted. (Tr. 553)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
2146] duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No.
to which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly
legally excepted. (Tr. 553)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 323, to which
Sng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pted. (Tr. 553)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ndant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
on in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 324, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pied. (Tr. 553)
2. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
mdant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 325, to which
gz of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pted. (Tr. 553)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 326, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pied. (Tr. 553)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
n in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 327, to which
of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
(Tr. 553)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
nt’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
214. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the im
duction in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 317, to wl
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and 1
excepted. (Tr. 553)
215. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the in
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 318, to whid
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and 1
excepted. (Tr. 553)
216. For that the trial court erred in overruling th
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intrg
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 319, to wh
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and 1
excepted. (Tr. 553)
17. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the in
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 320, to wl
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg
excepted. (Tr. 553)
LU0U L031
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 328, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legalh
excepted. (Tr. 553)
226. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 329, to whidy
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg
excepted. (Tr. 553)
227. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 330, to whid
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legalh
excepted. (Tr. 553)
[fol 2147] 228. For that the trial court erred in over
ruling this defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowin
the introduction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 334
to which ruling of the trial court this defendant duly an
legally excepted. (Tr. 553)
229. For that the trial court erred in overruling thig
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intre
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 332, to whic
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legal
excepted. (Tr. 553)
230. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 333, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and leg
excepted. (Tr. 553)
231. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intre
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 334, to whid
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and lega
excepted. (Tr. 553)
232. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intre
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 335, to whid
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legallg
excepted. (Tr. 553)
233. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
uetion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 336, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 553).
234. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
uction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 337, to which
uling of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
epted. (Tr. 553)
235. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
setion in evidence of, plaintifi’s Exhibit No. 338, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
eepted. (Tr. 553)
236. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 339, to which
‘ol, 2148] ruling of the trial court this defendant duly
nd legally excepted. (Tr. 553)
237. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
action in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 340, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
pted. (Tr. 553)
238. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintif’s Exhibit No. 341, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
spted. (Tr. 553)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
ion in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 342, to which
ng of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
spied. (Tr. 553)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro-
1083
acc com
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 343, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legallyg
excepted. (Tr. 553)
241. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro!
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 344, to which§
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and lega
excepted. (Tr. 553)
242. For that the trial court erred in overruling this:
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro=
duction in evidence of, plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 345, to whick
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and lega
excepted. (Tr. 553)
243. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to, and thereby allowing the intro¥
duction in evidence of, plaintiff's Exhibit No. 346, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and legall
excepted. (Tr. 553)
244. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
judgment or decree of the 9th day of June, 1960, granting#
plaintiff’s motion to produce. (Tr. 29)
249. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Is it important to the business of The New
York Times to have those stringers in Alabama?”
@ which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
22)
250. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objection to the following question propounded
y the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Haven’t you made an active effort to obtain
stringers in Montgomery when there were no stringers
or it would appear there would be no stringers in the
immediate future, Mr. Faber?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
193)
i. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
efendant’s objection to the following question propounded
bey the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Now, am I correct, sir, that The Times as a
matter of business policy wants to have three stringers
in Alabama at all times?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
123)
245. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objections to being required to answer plain
tiff’s interrogatory No. 8 propounded to this defendan
(Tr. 20, 51, 53) 3
[fol 2149] 246. For that the trial court erred in over
tuling this defendant’s objections to being required
answer plaintiff’s interrogatory No. 9 propounded to
defendant. (Tr. 21, 51, 53)
247. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s objections to being required to answer plai
tiffs interrogatory No. 12 propounded to this defen The New York Times, have you not made an active
(Tr. 21, 53, 52) gc. effort to find a replacement for him?”
248. For that the trial court erred in overrulin: 7 ‘ ‘ =
defendant’s objections to being required to aver a aing g : Ge Huerdefendant duly aad legally excepted.
tiff’s interrogatory No. 18 propounded to this defenda
(Tr. 22, 23, 52, 53)
252. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
t's objection to the following question propounded
e plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Well, restricting it to Alabama for the moment,
on occasions when you were aware that a string cor-
respondent was about to discontinue his duties with
LUs
{fol. 2150] 253. For that the trial court erred in ove
ruling this defendant’s objection to the following question’
propounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber
“Q. All right. Now, I will ask you again, durin;
that period of time, what is the purpose insofar as The a
New York Times is concerned of having those stringy
correspondents in Alabama?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted. E
(Tr. 126)
254. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objection to the following question propounded§
by the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Do they sometimes decide themselves, that is,@
they, the staff correspondents, that there is a news?
situation worthy of coverage in Alabama and they go.
in on their own?” :
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 134) ;
255. For that the trial court erred in overruling this2
defendant’s objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber: a
“Q. What was the purpose of submitting to him thatd
list of cities?” 4
to whieh ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Er. 137) :
256. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objection to the following question propounded)
by the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Mr. Faber, have you now during the course off
your cross examination and direct examination detailedg
all of the services performed by Alabama stringers§
for The New York Times?” 4
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally exceptedd
(Tr. 176)
1085
257. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
defendant’s objection to the following question propounded
‘by the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Now, Mr. Faber, you mentioned collect calls
from the stringers to The New York Times in your
direct testimony. Now, suppose a stringer calls in a
story to The New York Times or wires it in, and in
either event, sends it in collect, and suppose also that
The New York Times does not accept that story for
publication, does The New York Times honor the
collect charge?”
9 which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
‘Tr. 190)
fol. 2151] 258. For that the trial court erred in over-
ng this defendant’s objection to the following question
propounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faher:
“Q. Do you presently and have you had for the last
four years a recording machine in New York which is
used to record, among other thing, stories that are
sent in by staff correspondents and stringers who are
located outside of New York?”
(@ which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
191)
259. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
endant’s objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Harold Faber:
“Q. Do Alabama stringers and do staff correspon-
dents who come into Alabama phone in stories for
recordation on any machine in the offices of The New
York Times in New York?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
1)
For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-
objections to this defendant’s Exhibits 1 through 160
in support of this defendant’s motion for new trial,
1087
1ueu
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1966-1988)
261. For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-
tiff’s objections to this defendant’s evidence offered in sup-@
port of its motion for new trial, to which ruling this defen-4
dant duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1960A) 3
262. For that the trial court erred in denying to this
defendant the right to adduce evidence in support of]
grounds 182 and 183 of its motion for a new trial in :
cause, to which ruling this defendant duly and legally ex
cepted. (Tr. 1963, 1964, 1966)
263. For that the trial court erred in sustaining objec
tions of the plaintiff to the introduction into evidence of
defendant’s Exhibits 1 through 160 to this defendant's
motion for new trial, to which ruling this defendant duly?
and legally excepted. (Tr. 1966)
266. For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-
ffs objections to the following question propounded by
this defendant to the witness, John McCabe:
“Q. From your experience and your connection with
and your familiarity with expense statements of The
New York Times and looking at this whole document
taken together with that item you have just read,
would that indicate to you that John Popham was
conducting any news gathering activities in Hunts-
a ville, Alabama?”
which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
456, 457)
267. For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-
's objections to the following question propounded by
defendant to the witness, John McCabe:
i “Q. From your experience and your jon wit
264. For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-@ and your familiarity’ with eames et we
tiff’s objections to the following questions propounded bye New York Times and looking at this whole document
this defendant to the witness, John McCabe: FE taken together with that item you have just read, would
«Q. And if an expense statement shows an overnight, that indicate to you that John Popham was conducting
stop in a certain town, it would not necessarily meant any Bews gathering activities in Huntsville, Alabama,
that that person conducted any activity in the way o! Apa to plaintiff’s Uxhibits Nos. 93, 98, 99, 100 and
news gathering if he were a reporter for The Ne 4012
[fol. 2152] York Times in that place, would it?” hich ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted.
7)
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excepted;
(Tr. 449)
265. For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain:
tiff’s objections to the following questions propounded b:
this defendant to the witness, John McCabe:
“Q. Would that expense account tell you whether on
not he was gathering news in that place or is the
an absence of a showing on there as to what he
doing?”
to which ruling this defendant duly and legally excep’
(Tr. 453, 454) 3
For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-
’s objections to this defendant’s Exhibit No. 156 offered
support of this defendant’s motion for new trial, to which
g of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
ied. (Tr. 1966, 1997)
. For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-
objections to this defendant’s Exhibit No. 157 offered
pport of this defendant’s motion for new trial, to which
g of the trial court this defendant duly and legally
(Tr. 1966, 1998)
For that the trial court erred in sustaining plain-
abjections to this defendant’s Exhibit No. 158 offered
1088
's Motion as amended to quash service of process
it had under the provisions of Title 7, Section 199(1)
of Alabama, of 1940, and holding therein that service
ocess on this defendant was valid under the provisions
Title 7, Section 199(1) Code of Alabama, 1940, and in
2154] so doing deprived this defendant of its property
put due process of law contrary to the provisions of
ndment Fourteen to the Constitution of the United
(Tr. 40)
. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
ment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defen-
Motion as amended to quash service of process upon
holding in said order, judgment or decree that this de-
ant was “doing business” in the State of Alabama,
in so doing deprived this defendant of its property
gat due process of law contrary to the provisions of
ndment Fourteen to the Constitution of the United
(Tr. 40)
For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
ment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the Motion
defendant as amended, to quash service of process
it in this case, and in so doing denied this defendant
al protection of the law as guaranteed to it by
ment Fourteen to the Constitution of the United
(Tr. 40)
For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
ment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defen-
Motion as amended to quash service of process upon
leKee as an alleged agent of this defendant, and in
denied this defendant the equal protection of the
guaranteed to it by Amendment Fourteen to the
ution of the United States. (Tr. 40)
For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
ent or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the Motion
ded of this defendant to quash service of process
% in holding in said order, judgment or decree that
fendant had made a general appearance in this cause,
e doing denied this defendant the equal protection
[fol. 2153] in swpport of this defendant’s motion for ne
trial, to which ruling of the trial court this defendant du
and legally excepted. (Tr. 1966, 1998)
271. For that the trial court erred in sustaining p
tiffs objections to this defendant’s Exhibit No. 159 offereig
in support of this defendant’s motion for new trial, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le;
excepted. (Tr. 1966, 1998)
272, For that the trial court erred in sustaining pla
tiff’s objections to this defendant’s Exhibit No. 160 offei
in support of this defendant’s motion for new trial, to whi
ruling of the trial court this defendant duly and le:
excepted. (Tr. 1966, 1998) i
273. For that the trial court erred in entering its order
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the mo’
of this defendant as amended to quash service of proc
upon it in this case, and in so doing deprived this defend
of its property without due process of law contrary to
provisions of Amendment Fourteen to the Constitution
the United States. (Tr. 40)
274, For that the trial court erred in entering its ord
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this de!
dant’s Motion as amended to quash service of process w
Don McKee as an alleged agent of this defendant, an
so doing deprived this defendant of its property withom®
due process of law contrary to the provisions of Amendmes
Fourteen to the Constitution of the United States. (ue
975. For that the trial court erred in entering its or
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the Motic
fas amended of this defendant to quash service of proces
upon it in holding in said order, judgment or decree th
this defendant had made a general appearance in this cat
and in so doing deprived this defendant of its prope
without due process of law contrary to the provisions
Amendment Fourteen to the Constitution of the Unit
States. (Tr. 40)
276. For that the trial court erred in entering its ord
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this dé
1090 Avot
defendant had made a general appearance in this cause,
tm so doing placed an improper restraint on freedom
press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amend-
‘o the Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 40)
For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
nent or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defen-
‘s Motion as amended to quash service of process upon
under the provisions of Title 7, Section 199(1), Code
ama of 1940, and holding therein that service of
on this defendant was valid under the provisions
Title 7, Section 199(1) Code of Alabama, 1940, and
2156] in so doing placed an improper restraint on
om of the press in violation of the First and Four-
h Amendments to the Constitutién of the United
es. (Tr. 40)
. For that the trial court erred in entering its order,
nt or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defen-
s Motion as amended to quash service of process upon
holding in said order, judgment or decree that this
t was “doing business” in the State of Alabama,
: 5 a so doing placed an improper restraint on freedom
283. For that the trial court erred in entering its ord @ press in violation of the First and Fourteenth
sudement or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the Moti OF .
i Gig defendant, as amended, to quash Ge ics of proe ae to the Constitution of the United States.
upon it in this case, and in so doing placed an impro, )
restraint on freedom of the press in violation of the Fi
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
United States. (Tr. 40)
984. For that the trial court erred in entering its ordegg™
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this def
dant’s Motion as amended to quash service of process upd
Don McKee as an alleged agent of this defendant, and
so doing placed an improper restraint on freedom of
press in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendme
to the Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 40)
285. For that the trial court erred in entering its o
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying the Mo
as amended of this defendant to quash service of pro
upon it in holding in said order, judgment or decree
of the Jaw as guaranteed to it by Amendment Fourteen
the Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 40)
281. For that the trial court erred in entering its orde
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defes
dant’s Motion as amended to quash service of process up
it had under the provisions of Title 7, Section 199(1), Ce
of Alabama of 1940, and holding therein that service
process on this defendant was valid under the provisia
of said Title 7, Section 199(1) Code of Alabama, 1940,
[fol. 2155] in so doing denied this defendant the equal p
tection of the law as guaranteed to it by Amendment Fou
teen to the Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 40)
282. For that the trial court erred in entering its orde
judgment or decree of August 5, 1960, denying this defe
dant’s Motion as amended to quash service of process upa
it in holding in said order, judgment or decree that thy
defendant was “doing business” in the State of Alab
and in so doing denied this defendant the equal protecti
of the law as guaranteed to it by Amendment Fourteen’
the Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 40)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
dant’s demurrers as last amended to plaintiff’s com-
t and in thereby holding that said complaint stated
of action deprived this defendant of its property
sat due process of law in contravention of the provi-
ms of Amendment Fourteen to the Constitution of the
d States. (Tr. 86)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling this
t’s demurrers as last amended to plaintiff's com-
and in thereby holding that said complaint stated a
of action abridged freedom of the press in contraven-
f the provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amend-
to the Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 86)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
’s demurrers as last amended to Count One of
due ion
plaintiff’s complaint and in thereby holding that s
Count One stated a cause of action abridged freedom a
the press in contravention of the provisions of the Fixg
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of @
United States. (Tr. 86)
291. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s demurrers as last amended to Count Two
plaintifi’s complaint and in thereby holding that s
Count Two stated a cause of action abridged freedom
the press in contravention of the provisions of the
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of ®
United States. (Tr. 86)
292. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s demurrers as last amended to Count One g
[fol. 2157] plaintiffs complaint and in thereby holding ths
said Count One stated a cause of action deprived
defendant of its property without due process of law
contravention of the provisions of Amendment Fourt
to the Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 86)
293. For that the trial court erred in overruling
defendant’s demurrers as last amended to Count Two
plaintiff’s complaint and in thereby holding that said Cor
Two stated a cause of action deprived this defendant of
property without due process of law in contravention
the provisions of Amendment Fourteen to the Consti
| tion of the United States. (Tr. 86) i
294. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge a
the jury wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows;
Constitution of the United States, to which portion
wh oral charge of the Court this defendant duly and
y excepted. (Tr. 1953, 1957)
For that the trial court erred in its oral charge to
y wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows:
“So, as I said, if you are reasonably satisfied from
he evidence before you, considered in connection with
the rules of law the Court has stated to you, you would
ome to consider the question of damages, and, where
Eas here, the Court has ruled the matter complained of
‘proved to your reasonable satisfaction and aimed at
‘the plaintiff in this case, is libelous per se, then puni-
e damages may be awarded by the jury even though
the amount of actual damages is neither found nor
ed to it by the provisions of Amendment Fourteen
Constitution of the United States, to which portion
wh oral charge of the Court this defendant duly and
excepted. (Tr. 1953, 1957)
58] 296. For that the trial court erred in its oral
¢ to the jury wherein the Court instructed the jury
ows:
“So, as I said, if you are reasonably satisfied from
she evidence before you, considered in connection with
e rules of law the Court has stated to you, you would
e to consider the question of damages, and, where
here, the Court has ruled the matter complained of
eved to your reasonable satisfaction and aimed at
2 plaintiff in this case, is libelous per se, then puni-
damages may be awarded by the jury even though
amount of actual damages is neither found nor
n
“So, as I said, if you are reasonably satisfied fi
the evidence before you, considered in connection
the rules of law the Court has stated to you, you wa
come to consider the question of damages, and, wh
as here, the Court has ruled the matter complaii
of proved to your reasonable satisfaction and aimed
the plaintiff in this case, is libelous per se, then p
tive damages may be awarded by the jury even tho
the amount of actual damages is neither found
shown.”
et NTA miter eel eat mStar mth tiad ne Set
i
i
|
|
i
duvt Ludo
and in so instructing the jury the trial court imposed
improper restraint or abridged freedom of the press cal
trary to the provisions of Amendments One and Fou
to the Constitution of the United States, to which po:
of such oral charge of the Court this defendant duly atidns process Of inw i ‘ i ike Fi
j 57 y in contravention of the Four-
legally excepted. (Pr. 1953, 1957) oo Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
297. For that the trial court erred in denying this d Ss. 1957 M)
fendant’s motion for new trial on those grounds of :
motion numbered 150 and 151 stating that said verdig@
was so excessive that the same was the result of
passion or prejudice against this defendant and in so dex
ing said motion the trial court deprived this defendant
its property without due process of law in contraventias
of the provisions of Amendment Fourteen to the Consti
tion of the United States. (Tr. 2057D)
298. For that the trial court erred in denying this
fendant’s motion for new trial on those grounds of
motion numbered 150 and 151 stating that said verd
was so excessive that the same was the result of bias, sat due process of law in contravention of the Four-
sion or prejudice against this defendant and in so denya bh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
said motion the trial court abridged or placed an improp Pee 1957 N)
restraint on freedom of the press contrary to the prow
sions of Amendments One and Fourtcen to the Constif
tion of the United States. (Tr. 2057 D)
299. For that the trial court erred in denying this
fendant’s motion for new trial on those grounds of s
motion numbered 150 and 151 stating that said verd
was so excessive that the same was the result of bias
passion or prejudice against this defendant and in so denyg
ing said motion the trial court denied this defendant eq
protection of the law in contravention of the Fourteent
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (%
2057 D) 3
[fol. 2159] 300. For that the trial court erred in refus
to give the following written instruction to the jury
this cause at the request of this defendant:
“T_ 92. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, tha
you believe the evidence in this case, you cannot
verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corpora-
ion.” Refused, Jones Judge
so refusing deprived this defendant of its property
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
@ request of this defendant:
“T. 23. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
rou believe the evidence in this case you cannot find
verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corpora-
on, in this case under Count One of plaintiff’s com-
plaint.” Refused, Jones Judge.
Fin so refusing deprived this defendant of its property
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
e request of this defendant:
T. 25. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
on believe the evidence in this case you cannot find
verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
fondant, The New York Times Company, a corpora-
on, in this case under Count Two of plaintiff’s com-
int.” Refused, Jones Judge.
nso refusing deprived this defendant of its property
due process of law in contravention of the Four-
5; Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
; For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
Howing written instruction to the jury in this cause
request of this defendant:
Lvsv aie
“T. 22. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
ou believe the evidence in this case, you cannot find
. verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
dant, The New York Times Company, a corpora-
Refused, Jones Judge.
“T_ 22. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
you believe the evidence in this case, you cannot ii
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and “against the d
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corpo:
tion.” Refused, Jones Judge.
and in so refusing denied this defendant the equal px
[fol. 2160] tection of the law as guaranteed to it by @
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Uni
States. (Tr. 1957M) 3
304. For that the trial court erred in refusing to
the following written instruction to the jury in this cau
at the request of this defendant:
so refusing abridged or imposed an improper re-
% of the freedom of the press in contravention of
dments One and Fourteen to the Constitution of the
d States. (Tr. 1957 M)
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause
request of this defendant:
'T. 23. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
ou believe the evidence in this case you cannot find
verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
ol. 2161] fendant, The New York Times Company,
eorporation, in this case under Count One of plain-
HPs complaint.” Refused, Jones Judge.
“T. 23. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that
you believe the evidence in this case you cannot fi
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corpo:
tion, in this case under Count One of plaintifi’s ¢o
plaint.” Refused, Jones Judge.
em so refusing abridged or imposed an improper re-
Hi of the freedom of the press in contravention of
aments One and Fourteen to the Constitution of the
a States. (Tr. 1957 M)
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
owing written instruction to the jury in this cause
request of this defendant:
and in so refusing denied this defendant the equal pr
tection of the law as guaranteed to it by the Fourtea
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (
1957N)
305. For that the trial court erred in refusing to
the following written instruction to the jury in this ca
at the request of this defendant:
*“T. 25. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
ou believe the evidence in this case you cannot find
verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
dant, The New York Times Contpany, a corpora-
in this case under Count Two of plaintiff’s com-
nt.” Refused, Jones Judge.
“T, 25. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, tha’
you believe the evidence in this case you cannot fi
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the
fendant, The New York Times Company, a corporag
tion in this ease under Count Two of plaintifi’s «
plaint.” Refused, Jones Judge.
and in so refusing denied this defendant the equal prg
tection of the law as guaranteed to it by the Fourtee
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (
1957 N)
306. For that the trial court erred in refusing to g
the following written instruction to the jury in this cam
at the request of this defendant:
so refusing abridged or imposed an improper re-
% of the freedom of the press in contravention of
gments One and Fourteen to the Constitution of the
States. (Tr. 1957 N)
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
ng written instruction to the jury in this cause
mest of this defendant:
1095
“T. 35. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
there is no evidence in this case from which it appea
that the plaintiff was referred to in the advertisen
published by defendant New York Times Company
therefore your verdict must be for the defendant
York Times Company.” Refused, Jones Judge.
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
ani’s demurrers as last amended to plaintiff’s com-
and in thereby holding that said complaint stated
ise of action denied to this defendant equal protec-
of the laws in contravention of the provisions of the
nth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
(Tr. 86)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
nt’s demurrers as last amended to Count One of
complaint and in thereby holding that said Count
ated a cause of action denied to this defendant equal
tion of the laws in contravention of the provisions
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
d States. (Tr. 86)
For that the trial court erred in overruling this
nt’s demurrers as last amended to Count Two
ntiff’s complaint and in thereby holding that said
Two stated a cause of action denied to this defen-
equal protection of the laws in contravention of the
ms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-
#f the United States. (Tr. 86)
Beddow, Embry & Beddow, T. Erie Embry, Attor-
neys for Appellant, The New York Times Com-
pany, a Corporation.
and in so refusing denied this defendant the equal p
tection of the law as guaranteed to it by the Fourteen!
‘Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (
1957 N)
310. For that the trial court erred in refusing to giv
the following written instruction to the jury in this causi
at the request of this defendant: 2
“7, 35, I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, thy
there is no evidence in this case from which it app
that the plaintiff was referred to in the advertisema
published by defendant New York Times Com
and therefore your verdict must be for the defen
New York Times Company.” Refused, Jones Jud
and in so refusing abridged or imposed an improper %
straint of the freedom of the press in contravention 4
Amendments Onc and Fourteen to the Constitution of ty
United States. (Tr. 1957 N)
[fol. 2162] 311. For that the trial court erred in refusi
to give the following written instruction to the jury
2168] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
this cause at the request of this defendant:
“T_ 35, I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
there is no evidence in this case from which it appe
that the plaintiff was referred to in the advertisem
published by defendant New York Times Com
and therefore your verdict must be for the defend
New York Times Company.” Refused, Jones Judge.
and in so refusing deprived this defendant of its prope
without due process of law in contravention of the Fong
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State
(Tr. 1957 N)
LiLuu
[fol. 2165]
In roe Supreme Courr or ALapaMa
No, -......
Turep Drvision
Tax New Yorx Times Company, A Corporation, Raura B
Asrenatuy, Frep L. Suurriasworrs, S. S. Szay, Se
anp J. E. Lowzry, Appellants,
vs.
L. B. Suizzvay, Appellee.
Assicnments or Error or Raten D. ABERNATHY, BT AL.
Come the Appellants, Ralph D. Abernatiy, Fred
Shuttlesworth, S. S. Seay, Sr. and J. E. Lowery in th
eause and say there is manifest error in the trial of
cause and manifest error in the record of the trial of th
cause and as grounds for such error set down and as
the following, separately and severally:
1. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
fendants’ demurrers and amended demurrers to plaintif?
Complaint. (Tr. 86)
2. For that the trial court erred in its ruling refi
to allow these defendants to propound the following q
tion to the jury venire on voir dire:
“j, J will ask you, gentlemen, even though at the cloag
of this case that you may find a certain statement cox
tained in the advertisement made the basis of the pl
tiffs complaint in this case in their cause of action
not accurate or correct but the evidence discloses th
the advertisement did not refer to the plaintiffs,
you entertain any conviction, opinion, or predispositi
of mind which would compel you to return a verd
in favor of the plaintiffs, or would prevent your retut
ing a verdict in favor of the defendant, the New Yo
Times Company, a corporation?”
EE Ne
hich ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
1694-95)
. For that the trial court erred in its ruling refusing
iow these defendants to propound the following ques-
nire on voir dire:
Have any of you gentlemen ever been a plaintiff in
lawsuit in this Court any number of times, that is
say, have you filed a suit seeking recovery of money
‘om another person, firm, or corporation?”
ich ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
1695)
For that the trial court erred in its ruling refusing to
these defendants to propound the following question
jury venire on voir dire:
fol. 2166] “3. I will ask you, gentlemen, if at the close
the evidence in this case and the evidence shows
that The New York Times Company was not actuated
y malice in publishing this paid advertisement, would
va refuse to award damages to punish the New York
mes, that is to say, would you refuse to award puni-
five damages?”
ich ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
1695)
For that the trial court erred in its ruling refusing to
these defendants to propound the following question
jery venire on voir dire:
Is there any reason, without disclosing that reason
me, that would tend to embarrass you, or embarrass
fou in any way, or cause you to hesitate to return a
diet in favor of the New York Times Company, a
erporation, in this case?”
h A ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
95)
‘or that the trial court erred in refusing to sustain
endants’ objection to the way that the word
1102
Eokel
N-B-G-R-O. was being. pronounced which sounded like §
N-I-G-R-A or Nigger. (Tr. 1695-98) ;
7. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de |
fendants’ objection to the following question propounded 7
by the plaintiff to the witness, Grover C. Hall, Jr.:
il. For that the trial court erred in overruling these «
endants’ objection to the following question propounc
the plaintiff to the witness, Arnold D. Blackwell:
“Q. ... 1 ask you there whether those statements as
ciate themselves in your mind with any person
: 9”
“Q. I will ask you, Mr. Hall, whether you associate the @ Persons*
statements contained in that paragraph with any per
‘% which ruling these defendants duly and legally except
son or persons?”
(Tr. 1737)
12. For that the trial court erred in overruling these «
fendants’ objection to the witness, William H. McDonald
“Q. Now, going back to March 6th of this year, 19
Mr. MacDonald, did you have occasion to observ«
demonstration or a near riot that took place on Dex
Avenue on Sunday, March 6th?”
9 which ruling these defendants duly and legally except
1748-49)
13. For that the trial court erred in overruling these «
dants’ objection to the following question propounded
plaintiff to the witness, Harry W. Kaminsky:
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. 3
(Tr. 1723) 3
8. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de- 4
fendants’ objection to the following question propounded §
by the plaintiff to the witness, Grover C. Hall, Jr.:
“Q. Referring to the statements contained in the para-
graph of the ad to which I referred you, do you asso- {
ciate those statements with any person or persons?” »
to whieh ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. §
(Tr. 1724) ’
9. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de |
fendants’ objection to the following question propounded g
by the plaintiff to the witness, Arnold D. Blackwell:
“Q. Do the statements contained in that paragraph asso- j
ciate themselves in your mind with any person or group @
of persons?”
“Q. Now, Mr. Kaminsky, do you associate the ste
ments and material contained in that paragraph t
I have just showed you with any person or persons?
which ruling these defendants duly and legally except
1755)
- 14. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
ndants’ objection to the following question propounc
the plaintiff to the witness, Harry W. Kaminsky:
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. q
(Tr. 1734-35) :
10. For that ihe trial court erred in overruling these d
fendants’ objection to the following question propound
by the plaintiff to the witness, Arnold D. Blackwell:
[fol. 2167] “Q. Now, if you believed the statements in}
that paragraph to be correct, Mr. Blackwell, and true,
would they affect your opinion of the Police Commis-%
sioner in any way?” a
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. @
(Tr. 1736) y
“Q_ If you believed the statements contained in t
paragraph to be correct, Mr. Kaminsky, would t
affect in any way your opinion of the Police Comn
sioner?”
which ruling these defendants duly and legally except
1755)
. For that the trial court erred in overruling these «
adants’ objection to the following question propounc
the plaintiff to the witness, H. M. Price, Sr.:
Live
“Q. Mr. Parker, on the assumption that you believed
those to be true, whether you do or not, but if you did
believe them to be true, the statements I have read,
would that affect your opinion of Mr. Sullivan, and
if so, state how.”
“Q. Mr. Price, did it—when you read the statements
contained in those two paragraphs, do they associate
themselves in your mind with any person? Those state-
ments of events?”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. 3
(Tr. 1765-66)
[fol. 2168] 16. For that the trial court erred in overruling
these defendants’ objection to the following question pro-
pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, H. M. Price:
“Q. Mr. Price, if you believed the statements contained 4
in those two paragraphs to be true, regardless of 3
whether you think them to be true, if you believed them
to be true, would that affect your opinion of Mr. Sulli-
van—?” ;
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. 3
(Tr. 1766)
17. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de
fendants’ motion to strike the following answer of plaintiff's ¥
witness, H. M. Price, Sr.: : :
“A, TI don’t think there is any question about what IJ
would decide. I think I would decide that we probably #
had a young Gestapo in Montgomery.” 3
which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
Tr. 1771)
20. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
endants’ objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, Horace W. White:
“Q. Did it mean any particular person or persons to
you?”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1785)
21. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
endants’ objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, Horace W. White:
“Q. I will ask you this, if you believe—not saying that
you believe or do not believe—but if you believed the
material in those paragraphs in this ad, would that
affect your opinion of Mr. L. B. Sullivan?”
which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
1785)
‘ol, 2169] 22. For that the trial court erred in overruling
se defendants’ objection to the following question pro-
_ pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Horace W. White:
“Q. In what manner would it affect your opinion?”
which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
ffx. 1786)
$3. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
nts’ objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, John R. Matthews:
*Q. Now, where is the first entry in your books which
indicated a charge in connection with the incident on
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1766)
18. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de- ¢
fendants’ objection to the following question propounded 3
by the plaintiff to the witness, William M. Parker, Jr.: 4
“Q. Mr. Parker do you associate those statements con-
tained in those paragraphs with any person or persons
that you know or are acquainted with?”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. 4
(Tr. 1770-71) :
19. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-¥
fendants’ objection to the following question propounded |
by the plaintiff to the witness, William M. Parker, Jr.: 4]
ALi
aduy
. Now, Doctor, I want to read one sentence to you
nd ask you whether it is true. ‘In Montgomery, Ala-
a, after students sang “My Country “Tis of Thee”
n the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled
‘om school.’ ”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excep
(Tr. 1797-98)
24. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
fendants’ objection to the following question propound
by the plaintiff to the witness, E. Y. Lacy:
“Q. In the course of your duties, Lt. Lacy, did you h:
oceasion to investigate a bombing which took place
the home of Martin Luther King, Jr., in Montgome
Alabama?”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally except
(Tr. 1807)
25. For that the trial court erred in its ruling refus'
to allow these defendants to propound the following qu
tion on cross-examination to the witness, E. Y. Lacy:
For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
nis’ objection to the following guestion propounded
plaintiff to the witness L. B. Sullivan
. Teall your attention, Mr. Sullivan, to the third para-
aph in the left hand column of this ad which reads
as follows: ‘In Montgomery, Alabama, after students
‘sang “My Country "Tis of Thee,” on the State Capitol
eps, their leaders were expelled from school and truck-
z ads of police, armed with shotguns and tear gas,
te vinged the Alabama State College campus.’ I ask you
j 977
“Q. Then, obviously, this article or the matter that that statement is true or false?
talked about didn’t apply to him, did it?”
26. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
fendants’ objection to the following question propoun
by the plaintiff to the witness, 0. M. Strickland:
“Q. As connected with the arrest of Martin Luther
Jr., and state what the cireumstances were and wi
happened on that occasion in your own words.”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted
(Tr. 1814-15)
27. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
fendants’ objection to the following question propoun >
by the plaintiff to the witness, Frank R. Steward:
“Q. Would you state the circumstances of the expuls
of nine students from Alabama State College by
State Board of Education?”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepte
(Tr. 1819)
{fol 2170] 28, For that the trial court erred in overruli
these defendants’ objection to the following question p:
pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Frank R. Stewai
ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
829)
For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
’ objection to the following question propounded
plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
Now Mr. Sullivan, I call your attention to the next
tence in that same paragraph which reads as fol-
yws: ‘When the entire student body protested to State
uthorities by refusing to re-register, their dining hall
padlocked in an attempt to starve them into sub-
sion.’ Is that statement true or false?”
ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
0)
For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
is’ objection to the following question propounded
plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
. Now, I ask you, Mr. Sullivan, whether, to your
Exnowledge, it is accurate that they have arrested him
times—for speeding, loitering and similar
es?”
purported facts which were going into the ad were
correct?”
‘to which these defendants duly and legally excepted. (Tr.
1841)
37. For that the trial court erred in denying these de-
endants’ motion to exclude plaintiff’s evidence as refiled,
and to which ruling these defendants duly and legally ex-
epted. (Tr. 1944)
38. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge to the
wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows:
“Now the Court is of the opinion and so charges you,
gentlemen of the jury, that the matter complained of in
plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 347, that’s the controversial ad
which you will have before you, and parts of which
are set out in the Counts here in the Complaint, belongs
to that class of defamation called in law, libel per se.”
@ which portion of such oral charge of the Court these de-
ants duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1951 and 1957)
39. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge to the
y wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows:
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1832)
32. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
fendants’ objection to the following uestion propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sulliva:
“Q. Mr. Sullivan, did you have anything at all to do with
procuring the indictment of Martin Luther King ona
charge of violating income tax laws of the State of |
Alabama?”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. 4
(Tr. 1833)
{fol. 2171] 33. For that the trial court erred in overruling
these defendants’ objection to the following question pro-
pounded by the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Did you testify in that case either before the Grand
Jury which indicted him, or before the petit jury which
tried him?”
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1833)
34. For that the trial court erred in overruling these de-
fendants’ objection to the following question propounded
by the plaintiff to the witness, L. B. Sullivan:
“Q. Did you testify with regard to the guilt or innocence.
of the defendant?” :
to which ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted.
(Tr. 1834)
35. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
fendants’ motions to exclude plaintiff’s evidence, to whidi
ruling these defendants duly and legally excepted. (
1853)
36. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
fendants’ objection to the following question propounded
the plaintiff to the witness, John Murray:
«Q. Now, did you satisfy yourself that the facts that y
were going to put into this ad were correct or that
“We can say as part of the law in t
Heation is Hibelous
degrade ihe plaintis in the
. him in his public office, or impute misconduct to
in his office, or want of official inte:
Hdelity to a public trast. or such as
plaintiff to ridicule or public distrust.”
2172] to which portion of such oral charge of the Court
defendants duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1952 and
For that the trial court erred in its oral charge to
y wherein the Conrt ted the Jury as follows:
as I said, if you are reasonably satisfied from the
dence before you, considered in connection with the
of law the Court has stated to you, you would
iilv ditt
For that the trial court erred in its refusal to enter
erder or ruling as a matter of record with respect to
defendants’ motion for a new trial after repeated re-
St of their attorneys of record in contravention of the
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
itution of the United States of America.
. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at the
2173] request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
I charge you gentlemen of the jury, to find a ver-
dict in favor of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy.”
Refused, Jones, Judge.
come to consider the question of damages, and, wh
as here, the Court has ruled the matter complained o}
proved to your reasonable satisfaction and aimed at
plaintiff in this case, is libelous per se, then punith
damages may be awarded by the jury even though th
amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown!
to which portion of such oral charge of the Court the:
defendants duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1953 and 195
41. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge to
jury wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows:
“Now, it is the contention of the plaintiff here thaig
although you may believe, as to the four individ
defendants, that they did not sign this advertisemen
and did not authorize it, yet it is the contention of the
plaintiff, Sullivan, that the four individuals, the fou
individual defendants after knowing of the publica
of the advertisement and after knowing of its contents
ratified the use of their names, that is, that they ap
proved and sanctioned this advertisement. In of]
words, the plaintiff, Sullivan, insists that there was a
ratification of the advertisement and the use of the
i names as signers of the advertisement by the fom
individual defendants and we here define ratificatior
| as the approval by a person of a prior act which
i
5. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
‘T.2. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find that the Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, did not
authorize the publication of the article in question
which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of
him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
e request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“£3. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
Gnd that the Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, did not
consent to the publication of the article in question
which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of
him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find that the Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, did not
publish on his behalf the article in question which
Sppeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March
not bind him but which was professedly done on
account or in his behalf whereby the act, the use of h
name, the publication, is given effect as if authorized:
by him in the very beginning. Ratification is really th
same as a previous authorization and is a confirmatia
or approval of what has been done by another on hi
account.”
to which portion of such oral charge of the Court thesé
defendants duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1953 and 195
42, For that the trial court erred in its refusal to the:
defendants the right to be heard on their motion for a ney
trial, and which refusal deprived these defendants of tl
property without due process of law in contravention o
their rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to th
Constitution of the United States. (Tr. 2058-2105)
‘v
4d
29, 1960, you must find a verdict for him.” Refuse
Jones, Judge.
48, For that the trial court erred in refusing to give th
following written instruction to the jury in this cause a
the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“T.5. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if youg
find that the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, did nota
authorize anyone to publish on his behalf the article
in question which appeared in the New York Times
on Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict j
for him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
49. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the 7
following written instruction to the jury in this cause at
the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“TG. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if from
the evidence you find that the Defendant, Ralph
Abernathy, did not directly or through some oth
person authorize to act for him, publish or consent
the publication of the statements complained of in ths
New York Times on Tuesday, March 29, 1960, yous
must find a verdict in favor of him.” Refused, Jones, ;
Judge.
50. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury in this caus
at the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
[fol. 2174] “T.8. I charge you, gentiemen of the jary,4
that unless from the evidence you are convinced thatg
the Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, was the auth
or the publisher of the advertisement which appear
in the New York Times (the subject matter of ¢
suit) on Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must return
verdict for said Defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
51. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give th
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“T.9. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to consid :
a libel, there must be a publication as well as a writingg
ills
and if the publication was made without the consent of
the Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, the offense is not
complete as to him, and you must return a verdict in
favor of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
52, For that the trial court erred im refusing to give the
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
e request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“T.11. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find from the evidence that the Defendant, Ralph D.
Abernathy, had no knowledge of the writing or publi-
cation of the advertisement, prior to publication, that
appeared in the New York Times, dated, Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must return a verdict for the
defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
53. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“T.12. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the
burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to reasonably
satisfy you from the evidence in this case that the
Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, directly, or indirectly,
or through some other person authorized to act for
him, published or consented to the publication of the
statements complained of which appeared in the New
York Times on March 29, 1960, and unless from the
_ evidence you are convinced that said defendant did
directly or indirectly or through some other person
' authorized to act for him, published or consented to
the publication of said statements, then you must re-
turn a verdict for the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy.”
Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
wing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
13. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
Believe from the eviderice that the Defendant, Ralph
E}. Abernathy, did not authorize the use of his name in
sanection with the publication of the advertisement
which appeared in the New York Times on March 29, ;
1960, you must return a verdict for said defendant
Refused, Jones, Judge.
55. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
following written instruction to the jury in this cause aj
the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“7.14. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe from th
evidence that the Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy, di
not consent to the use of his name in connection wit
the publication of the advertisement which appeared in#
the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you must re3
turn a verdict for said defendant.” Refused, Jones, 3
Judge.
[fol. 2175] 56. For that the trial court erred in refusin;
to give the following written instruction to the jury in this 4
cause at the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernatl
“T.16. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if from @
the evidence you believe that the defendant, Ralph D.
Abernathy, did not publish or cause to be published.
the alieged libelous matter contained in the advertise.
ment which appeared in the New York Times on March.
29, 1960, then, as a matter of law, there is no legal’
obligation on the part of this defendant to reply to
the letter written by the plaintiff to this defendant
demanding a retraction of the alleged libelous matters,
and you must return a verdict for said defendant.”
Refused, Jones, Judge.
57. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
the following written instruction to the jury in this cause!
at the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“TAT. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
from the evidence you believe that the defendant never
authorized anyone to affix his name to the advertise-
ment which is the subject matter of this suit, and if
you further believe from the evidence that the Plain-
tiff wrote a letter to the Defendant demanding a re-
traction of certain alleged libelous matter contain
illo
the evidence that the Defendant did not reply to the
plaintiff letter, I charge you as a matter of law that
the Defendant’s failure to reply to Plaintiff’s letter
cannot be considered by you as an admission that he
published the alleged libelous matter; under such
circumstances the law does not require the Defendant
to reply to Plaintiff’s letter, and you must return a
verdict for the Defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy.” Re-
fused, Jones, Judge.
58. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
ke following written instruction to the jury in this cause
it the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“T.18. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe the evi-
dence in this case, you must return a verdict for the
defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy.” Refused, Jones,
Judge.
59. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
*T.19. Gentlemen of the jury, unless from the evidence
you are convinced that the defendant, Ralph D. Aber-
nathy consented to the use of his name in connection
with the publication of the advertisement complained
of, you must find for said defendant.” Refused, Jones,
Judge.
60. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, Ralph D. Abernathy:
“T20. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that un-
less on the evidence you are convinced that the defen-
dant, Ralph D. Abernathy, had knowledge of the
writing or publication of the advertisement complained
of, prior to publication in the New York Times,
dated Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find for the
defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
2176-2177] the following written instruction to the
in this cause at the request of the defendant, J. E.
41i0 bee cee
Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in
favor of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
he request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
“Ti. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to finda
verdict in favor of the Defendant, Rev. J. E. Lowery:
Refused, Jones, Judge.
62. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury im this can
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery: \6. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if from
the evidence you find that the Defendant, J. E. Lowery,
did not, either directly or through some other person
‘authorized to act for him, publish or consent to the
publication of the statements complained of which
appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March
29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him.”
Refused, Jones, Judge.
. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
e request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
“T.2. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if y
find that the Defendant, J. EB. Lowery, did not autho
ize the publication of the article in question wh
appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, Mai =
29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him
Refused, Jones, Judge. F
63. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury in this can
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
“T.3. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if y
find the Defendant, J. E. Lowery, did not consent
the publication of the article in question which
peared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March
1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him.”
fused, Jones, Judge.
8. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that unless
om the evidence you are convinced that the Defen-
{fol 2178] dant, J. E. Lowery, was the author of the
blisher of the advertisement which appeared in the
ee New York Times (the subject matter of this suit)
on Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must return a verdict
or said Defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
§ For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
allowing written instruction to the jury in this cause
request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
64. For that the trial court erred in refusing to
the following written instruction to the jury in this cau
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery: 2
“T.4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if y
find that the Defendant, J. E. Lowery, did not publi
or cause to be published the article in question wl
appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, M
29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him
Refused, Jones, Judge.
=T.9. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to constitute
libel, there must be publication as well as a writing,
d if the publication was made without the consent
the Defendant, J. E. Lowery, the offense is not
mplete as to him and you must return a verdict in
‘or of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause
ragnest of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
from the evidence that the Defendant, J. E.
65. For that the trial court erred in refusing to
the following written instruction to the jury in this cai
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
“15. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
find that the Defendant, J. BE. Lowery, did noi
thorize anyone to publish on his behalf the article
question which appeared in the New York Times
11d dtts
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
e request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
Lowery, had no knowledge of the writing or publi
tion of the advertisement, prior to publication,
appeared in the New York Times, dated, Tues
March 29, 1960, you must return a verdict for the
Defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
70. For that the trial court erred in refusing to
the following written instruction to the jury in this cans
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
fol. 2179] “T.16. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
that if from the evidence you believe that the defendant
. E. Lowery, did not publish or cause to be published
the alleged libelous matter contained in the advertise-
ment which appeared in the New York Times on March
29, 1960, then, as a matter of law, there was no legal
ybligation on the part of this defendant to reply to
‘the letter written by the plaintiff to this defendant
demanding a retraction of the alleged libelous matters,
and you must return a verdict for said defendant.”
‘Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
“T.12. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that @
burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to reasonal
satisfy you from the evidence in this case that #
Defendant, J. E. Lowery, directly, or indirectly, |
through some other person authorized to act for hi
publi shed or consented to the publication of said stat
ments, then you must return a verdict for the defe
dant, J. E. Lowery.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
71. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury in this cau
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
P17. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if
om the evidence you believe that the defendant never
“authorized anyone to affix his name to the advertise-
nent which is the subject matter of this suit, and if
ou further believe from the evidence that the Plain-
“aff wrote a letter to the Defendant demanding a re-
ction of certain alleged libelous matter contained
said advertisement, and if you further believe from
he evidence that the Defendant did not reply to the
@ Plaintiff’s letter, I charge you as a matter of law that
fhe Defendant’s failure to reply to Plaintiff’s letter
2 eannot be considered by you as an admission that he
mblished the alleged libelous matter; under such cir-
stances the law does not require the Defendant to
ly to Plaintiff's letter, and you must return a ver-
for the Defendant, J. E. Lowery.” Refused, Jones,
“T.13. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if y
believe from the evidence that the defendant, J.
Lowery, did NOT authorize the use of his name
connection with the advertisement which appeared
the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you mr
return a verdict for said Defendant.” Refused, J
Judge.
72. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gis
the following written instruction to the jury in this can
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
“T.14, Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe from f
evidence that the Defendant, J. E. Lowery, did
consent to the use of his name in connection with
publication of the advertisement which appeared
the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you mu
return a verdict for said Defendant.” Refused, Jon
Judge.
‘en that the trial court erred in refusing to give
owing written instruction to the jury in this cause
wequest of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
iiat
“P18. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe the evi. :
dence in this case, you must return a verdict for t!
defendant, J. B. Lowery.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
80. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“T.3. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find that the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., did not consent
to the publication of the article in question which ap-
peared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you
must find a verdict in favor of him.” Refused, Jones,
Judge.
76. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury in this cause
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery:
“T.19. Gentlemen of the jury, unless from the evi-
dence you are convinced that the defendant, J. E
Lowery, consented to the use of his name in connec}
tion with the publication of the advertisement com-
plained of, you must find for said defendant.” Re-
fused, Jones, Judge.
i. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
‘ollowing written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“T.4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find that the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., did not publish
or cause to be published the article in question which
appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, March
29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him.”
Refused, Jones, Judge.
82. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“f.5. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find that the Defendant, 8. S. Seay, Sr., did not au-
thorize anyone to publish on his behalf the article in
question which appeared in the New York Times on
Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in
favor of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“7.6. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if from
the evidence you find that the Defendant, 8. S. Seay,
Sr., did not, either direetly or through’ some other
person authorized to act for him, publish or consent
to the publication of the statements complained of
‘which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday,
h 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of
” Refused, Jones, Judge.
77. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give:
the following written instruction to the jury in this cause
at the request of the defendant, J. E. Lowery: 3
“T20. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that unless:
on the evidence you are convinced that the defendani
J. E. Lowery, had knowledge of the writing or publij
cation of the advertisement complained of, prior te
publication in the New York Times, dated Tuesday
March 29, 1960, you must find for the defendant’
Refused, Jones, Judge.
78. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury in this cau:
at the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“T.1. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to find
verdict in favor of the Defendant, S. S. Seay, S:
Refused, Jones, Judge.
[fol. 2180} 79. For that the trial court erred in refu
to give the following written instruction to the jury in
cause at the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“$2. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if y
find that the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., did not a
thorize the publication of the article in question whi
appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, Ma
29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of him™
Refused, Jones, Judge. 4
dled
84. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury_in this ¢
at the request of the defendant, 8. S. Seay, Sr.:
“Tg. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that unless
from the evidence you are convinced that the Def
dant, S. 8. Seay, Sr., was the author or the publisher.
of the advertisement which appeared in the New Yorks
Times (the subject matter of this suit) on Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must return a verdict for s
Defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
85. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause a
[fol. 2181] the request of the defendant, 8. 8S. Seay, Sr.:
“7.9, I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to constitate
a libel, there must be a publication as well as a writing,
and if the publication was made without the consem
of the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., the offense is no
complete as to him and you must return a verdict iz
favor of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
86. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury in this ca
at the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“T.41. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if yo
find from the evidence that the Defendant, S. S. Seay
v., had no knowledge of the writing or publicatio:
of the advertisement, prior to publication that: ap,
peared in the New York Times, dated, Tuesday, Mai
29, 1960, you must return a verdict for the said
fendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
87. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give th
following written instruction to the jury in this caus
the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“P42, I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that ba
burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to reasonabl
satisfy you from the evidence in this case that
Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., directly, or indirectly,
through some other person authorized to act for hin
published or consented to the publication of the state-
ments complained of which appeared in the New York
Times on March 29, 1960, and unless from the evi-
dence you are convinced that said Defendant did
directly or indirectly through some other person au-
thorized to act for him, published or consented to the
publication of said statements, then you must return
a verdict for the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.” Refused,
Jones, Judge.
88. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
e following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, 8. S. Seay, Sr.”
»*1.13. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
believe from the evidence that the Defendant 8. S.
Seay, Sr., did NOT authorize the use of his name in
connection with the publication of the advertisement
which appeared in the New York Times on March 29,
1960, you must return a verdict for said Defendant.”
Refused, Jones, Judge.
69. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
e request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“T 14. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe from the
evidence that the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr., did not
eonsent to the use of his name in connection with the
publication of the advertisement which appeared in
the New York Times on March 29, 1960, you must
return a verdict for said Defendant.” Refused, Jones,
Judge.
. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
he request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“P16. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if from
the evidence you believe that the defendant, S. 8.
Seay, Sr., did not publish or cause to be published the
alleged libelous matter contained in the advertisement
‘which appeared in the New York Times on March 29,
iizo
4, For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
lowing written instruction to the jury im this cause at
request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“7.20. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that unless
on the evidence you are convinced that the defendant
S. S. Seay, Sr. had knowledge of the writing or pub-
lication of the advertisement complained of, prior to
publication in the New York Times, dated Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must find for the defendant.” Re-
fused, Jones, Judge.
(95. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
allowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth.
“Ti. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to find a
verdict in favor of the Defendant, Fred L. Shuttles-
worth.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
6. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
owing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
{fol. 2183] “T.2. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury,
that if you find that the Defendant, Fred L. Shuitles-
worth, did not authorize the publication of the article
in question which appeared in the New York Times on
‘Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in
favor of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
87. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
[fol. 2182] 1960, then, as a matter of law, there was m
legal obligation on the part of this defendant to reph
to the letter written by the plaintiff to this defendan'
demanding a retraction of the alleged libelous matter:
and you must return a verdict for said defendant:
Refused, Jones, Judge. :
91. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give th
following written instruction to the jury in this cause ai
the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“TAT. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if from
the evidence you believe that the defendant never at
thorized anyone to affix his name to the advertise
ment which is the subject matter of this suit, and if yo
further believe from the evidence that the Plaintif g
wrote a letter to the Defendant demanding a retrace 9
tion of certain alleged libelous matter contained in said
advertisement, and if you further to the Plaintiff:
letter, I charge you as a matter of law that the De-3am
be considered by you as an admission that he pub-
lished the alleged libelous matter; under such circum
stances the law does not require the Defendant to
ply to Plaintiff’s letter, and you must return a verdict @
for the Defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.” Refused, Jones, §
Judge.
92. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
the following written instruction to the jury in this cause
at the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.:
“T.18. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe the e
dence in this case, you must return a verdict for the
defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
fied that th
93. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give thé eonsent to the publication of the °
following written instruction to the jury in this cause which appeared in the New York Times on T
the request of the defendant, S. S. Seay, Sr.: March 29. 1960. you mn in
“T.19. Gentlemen of the jury, unless from the eviden Hm.” Refused, Jones, Tadge.
you are convinced that the defendant, 8. S. Seay, S: For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
consented to the use of his name in connection with ng written instruction to the jury on this cause at
publication of the advertisement complained of, y equest of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
must find for the defendant.” Refused, Jones, Jud;
ated
“T.4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find that the Defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, did x
publish or cause to be published the article in qu
tion which appeared in the New York Times on Tu
day, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict for him!
Refused, Jones, Judge.
99. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“7.5. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you:
find that the Defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, did notj
authorize anyone to publish on his behalf the article
question which appeared in the New York Times ong
Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in
favor of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
100. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gt
the following written instruction to the jury in this ca
at the request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“T.6. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if fr
the evidence you find that the Defendant, Fred
Shuttlesworth, did not, either directly or through so!
other person authorized to act for him, publish or com
sent to the publication of the statements complain
of which appeared in the New York Times on Tuesdayy
March 29, 1960, you must find a verdict in favor of
him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
101. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“T.8. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that unk
from the evidence you are convinced that the Def
dant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, was the author or the pub.
lisher of the advertisement which appeared in the N
York Times (the subject matter of this suit) on Tu
day, March 29, 1960, you must return a verdict for s:
Defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
102. For that the trial court erred in refusing to gi
the following written instruction to the jury in this ea
at the request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttleswort!
“T.9. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, to constitute
a libel, there must be a publication as well as a writing,
and if the publication was made without the consent
[fol. 2184] of the Defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth,
the offense is not complete as to him and you must re-
turn a verdict in favor of him.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
103. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
owing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“P11. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
find from the evidence that the Defendant, Fred L.
Shuttlesworth, had no knowledge of the writing or
publication of the advertisement prior to publication,
that appears in the New York Times, dated, Tuesday,
March 29, 1960, you must return a verdict for the said
Defendant. ” Refused, Jones, Judge.
04. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
lowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
e request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“T12. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the
burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to reasonably
satisfy you from the evidence in this case that the
Defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, directly, or in-
directly, or through some other person authorized to
act for him, published or consented to the publication
of the statements complained of which appeared in
the New York Times on March 29, 1960, and unless from
the evidence you are convinced that said Defendant did
directly or indirectly or through some other person
authorized to act for him, published or consented to the
blication of said stat ts, then you must return a
yerdict for the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth.”
Refused, Jones, Judge.
85. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
following written instruction to the jury in this cause
request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
"P13. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you
eve from the evidence that the Defendant, Fred L.
1440
tiff wrote a letter to the defendant demanding a
retraction of certain alleged libelous matter contained
jn said advertisement, and if you further believe from
the evidence that the Defendant did not reply to the
Plaintiff’s letter, I charge you, as a matter of law, that
the Defendant’s failure to reply to Plaintiff’s letter
cannot be considered by you as an admission that he
published the alleged libelous matter; under such cir-
cumstances the law does not require the Defendant to
reply to Plaintiff’s letter, and you must return a ver-
dict for the Defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth.” Re-
fused, Jones, Judge.
409. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
¢ following written instruction to the jury in this cause
the request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“P48. Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe the evi-
dence in this case, you must return a verdict for the
defendant Fred L. Shuttlesworth.” Refused, Jones,
Judge.
410. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
owing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth :
«P19, Gentlemen of the jury, unless from the evidence
you are convinced that the defendant Fred L. Shuttles-
Wworth consented to the use of his name in connection
with the publication of the advertisement complained
of, you must find for said defendant.” Refused, Jones,
Shuttlesworth, did Nor authorize the use of his name:
in connection with the publication of the advertisement;
which appeared in the New York Times on March 29,
1960, you must return a verdict for said Defendant
Refused, Jones, Judge.
106. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give :
the following written instruction to the jury in this cause |
at the request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“14, Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe from the
evidence that the Defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth,
did not consent to the use of his name in connection:
with the publication of the advertisement which ap-
peared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960,
you must return a verdict for said Defendant.” Re- |
fused, Jones, Judge. E
107. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give
the following written instruction to the jury in this cause
at the request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth:
“T 16. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if fro
the evidence you believe that the defendant Fred L.
Shuttlesworth did not publish or cause to be published’
the alleged lihelous matter contained in the advertise-
ment which appeared in the New York Times on March
29, 1960, then, as a matter of law, there was no legal
obligation on the part of this defendant to reply to the
letter written by the plaintiff to this defendant de-4
manding a retraction of the alleged libelous matters, 2
and you must return’ a verdict for said defendant.” ¥ Judge.
Refused, Jones, Judge. 3 411. For that the trial court erred in refusing to give the
[fol. 2185] 108. For that the trial court erred in refus- Mowing written instruction to the jury in this cause at
ing to give the following written instruction to the jury’ request of the defendant, Fred L. Shuttlesworth :
Aes Bt the request of the defendant, Pred) 1. “P90, I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that unless
. 4 on the evidence you are convinced that the defendant,
“T1417. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if Fred L. Shuttlesworth had knowledge of the writing
from the evidence you believe that the defendant never. er publication of the advertisement complained of,
authorized anyone to affix his name to the advertise- prior to publication of the advertisement in the New
ment which is the subject matter of this suit, and if _ York Times, dated, Tuesday, March 29, 1960, you must
you further believe from the evidence that the pla! €nd for the defendant.” Refused, Jones, Judge.
ioral
112. For that the trial court erred in entering its judg:
ment in behalf of the plaintiff in this cause. (Tr. 1958)
113. For that the trial court erred in entering its final ag
judgment of November 3, 1960, in favor of plaintiff and
against these defendants in this cause. (Tr. 1958) :
114. For that the trial court erred in entering its judg.
ment of November 3, 1960, based upon the verdict of the
jury in this cause, in favor of plaintiff and against these™
defendants. (Tr. 1958) g
115. For that the trial court erred in entering its final 4
judgment against these defendants in this cause. (Tr. 1958)
“So, as I said, if you are reasonably satisfied from the
evidence before you, considered in connection with
the rules of law the Court has stated to you, you would
eome to consider the question of damages and, where
as here, the Court has ruled the matter complained
of proved to your reasonable satisfaction and aimed
at the plaintiff in this case, is Hbelous per se, then.
punitive damages may be awarded by the jury even
though the amount of actual damages is neither found
nor shown.”
d in so instructing the jury the trial court denied to
ese defendants the equal protection of the law as guar-
ed to them by the provisions of the Fourteenth
116. For that the trial court erred in overruling these
[fol. 2186] defendants’ demurrers as amended to plaintiff’
complaint and in thereby holding that said complaint state
a cause of action deprived these defendants of their prop-
erty without due process of law in contravention of the
provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitn-¢
tion of the United States. (Tr. 86)
117. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge te
the jury wherein the Court instructed the jury as follows:
nendment to the Constitution of the United States, to
ich portion of such oral charge of the Court these
ndants duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1953, 1957)
of the Court by which these defendants were pre-
ed from having a fair trial in that defendants were
bjected to the exercise of judicial power before a tribunal
Mich required its very facilities to be segregated on the
s of race and color and that the imposition of judicial
wer. upon defendants in a segregated tribunal denied
defendants their right to due process and equal pro-
stion of the law as guaranteed him under the Alabama
2187] and Federal Constitutions. (Tr. 2063)
"120. For that the trial court erred when it denied these
endants of their rights to be heard on their motion for
% new trial on those grounds of said motion numbered 26,
“So, as I said, if you are reasonably satisfied from th
evidence before you, considered in connection wii
the rules of law the Court has stated to you, you woul
come to consider the question of damage, complaine
of proved to your reasonable satisfaction and aimed
at the plaintiff in this case, is libelous per se, ther
punitive damages may be awarded by the jury even
though the amount of actual damages is neither found
nor shown.”
and in so instructing the jury the trial court deprived thes
defendants of their property without due process of law
in contravention of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amend. 2
ment to the Constitution of the United States, to which@
portion of such oral charge of the Court these defendanis™
duly and legally excepted. (Tr. 1953, 1957)
118. For that the trial court erred in its oral charge: 4
to the jury wherein the court instructed the jury as follows:
stion of jurors thereunder by the Court peing in viola-
€ Article I, Section 11 of Code :
’bama (1940) Title 7, Section 260, in that the Court
dive
as a member of the Board so selecting those persons who 01.2189] [Filed April 17, 1961—Supreme Court of Ala-
are to decide the case decided both the facts and the la a, J. Render Thomas, Clerk.]
(Er. 2063)
121. For that the trial court erred in depriving the:
defendants of their rights to be heard on their motion for
a new trial on those grounds of said motion numbered 30
and 31, stating that the record is so devoid of evidentiary
support of the allegations alleged in the complaint in that
the plaintiff having failed to present any evidence upon:
which it could rationally be found that this defendant was:
legally responsible for the publication of the advertise:
ment which is the basis of this suit, the verdict of the jury:
and the judgment of the court against the defendant
the sum of $500,000.00 deprived these defendants of the
property without due process of law in violation of the:
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. (Tr. 2064) 4
122. For that the trial court erred in depriving the:
defendants of their rights to be heard on their motion for3
a new trial on those grounds of said motion numbered 38:
and 39, stating that the verdict of the jury is contrary
the law in the case and the facts in the case. (Tr. 2065)
Charles S. Conley, 530 South Union Street, Suite
On Appran to Supreme Courr or ALabaMa
From Cimcurr Count or Montcomery County
Tus New York Times Company,
A Corporation, Appellant,
vs.
L. B. Sutzivan, Appellee.
Certiicate or APPEAL
Re State of Alabama
gontgomery County
John RB. Matthews, Clerk of the Cireuit Court of
tgomery County, hereby certify that in said Court
the 3rd day of November, 1960, in a trial before
y, a verdict was rendered in favor of L. B. Sullivan
against The New York Times Company, a corpora-
Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, 8. 8.
y, Sr. and J. E. Lowery for the sum of $500,000.00, and
judgment was thereupon entered against all of said
Montgomery 4, Alabama; : ties for the sum of $500,000.00.
Vernon Z. Crawford, 578 Davis Avenue, Mobil : further certify that the New York Times Company,
Alabama; : arporation, filed its motion to set aside the verdict
be jury and the judgment of the Court entered thereon
to grant it a new trial and that on the 17th day of
eh, 1961, said motion for a new trial was overruled
that on the 13th day of April, 1961, the said New York
Company, a corporation, gave notice of appeal from
ndement of said Court to the Supreme Court of Ala-
and did supersede said judgment by filing a Super-
Bond with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Com-
ag surety thereon, which said bond has been duly
By Charles S. Conley, Attorney for Appellant
Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, J. EY
Lowery, and 8. 8. Seay, Sr.
[fol. 2188] Certificate of service (omitted in printing).
‘Without waiving his motion to strike the foregoing puri
ported assignments of error, appellee says there is x
error in the record.
M. RB. Nachman, Jr., Attorney for Appellee. fimess my hand and the seal of said Court is hereto
d, this 14 day of April, 1961.
John R. Matthews, Clerk, Cireuit Court of Mont-
gomery County.
[fol. 2188a] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcrij
(omitted in printing).
[fol. 2190] [File endorsement omitted] _Said. individual defendants have not attempted to
‘ect an. appeal in the manner provided by the statutes
Alabama, and particularly the foregoing specified pro-
jons thereof, by filing a good and sufficient bond for
s of appeal, approved by the Clerk of the Cireuit Court
ntgomery County, Alabama.
. The paper filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
of Montgomery County, Alabama, by the said in-
dnal defendants on April 27, 1961 (R. 2108), is not
pliance with the statutes of Alabama regarding the
nner of perfecting an appeal, and particularly with those
sions specified in ground 1 of this motion, and is
2191] therefore not effective as a timely appeal to
Court from the court below within six months of the
of the final judgment against these said individual
endants, rendered on November 3, 1960.
Ly roe Supreme Court or ALABAMA
3d Div., No. 961
Tus New Yorx Timms Company, Appellant,
ve
L. B. Sunzivan, Appellee.
Motion or Appetizs to Srrixe AssicnMEnts or Error
—Filed September 8, 1961
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justic
of the Supreme Court of Alabama:
_Now comes L. B. Sullivan, appellee in the above-en :
titled cause, by and through his attorneys of record,
moves this Court to strike the purported assignments
error attempted to be filed by Ralph D. Abernathy, Freég
L. Shuttlesworth, J. E. Lowery, and S. S. Seay, Sr. (hereg
inafter called “individual defendants’), and mailed to ai
torneys for appellee on August 21, 1961; and moves te
strike each assignment of error, separately and severally;
and, in the alternative, to dismiss the attempted appea
by said persons in this cause, if this Court should constra
actions taken heretofore by these persons as an attem
to appeal to this Court; and as grounds assigns to
assignments of error, as a whole and to each assignment]
separately and severally, the following separate and sev-
eral grounds: j
Said individual defendants are not entitled, by virtue
tle 7, § 804, Code of Alabama 1940, to assign separate
prs, but are limited to uniting in the errors assigned
‘appellant The New York Times Company.
The purported assignments of error attempted to be
@ in this Court by the said individual defendants seek
fraise matters beyond the scope of and not involved in
ppeal of appellant The New York Times Company.
f.4 purported assignments seek to assign error said to
fe volved in an asserted holding by the court below that
said individual defendants had failed to continue
motions for new trial; and also seek to assign error
ng to grounds of said defunct motion.
The paper filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery
mnty, Alabama, by the said individual defendants (R.
, and styled “Notice of Joining in Appeal,” will not
ort an appeal, nor will it support separate and dif-
¢ assignments of error in this Court by the said in-
al defendants.
Appellant The New York Times Company did not
al from any ruling of the Circuit Court of Mont-
County, Alabama, “that the individual defendants’
1. Said individual defendants have not perfected a
appeal in this cause in the manner prescribed by the sta’
utes of Alabama, and particularly by Title 7 §§ 776,
and 792, Code of Alabama 1940, by filing a good
sufficient security for costs of appeal, approved by th
Olek of the Cireuit Court of Montgomery County, A
ama.
motion for a new trial was no longer before thi p i i
because of the alleged failure to continue the motion fo ‘ — [ie eatieeemend exsiee
a new trial by attorneys for the individual defendan'
and, accordingly, any such ruling by the Cireuit Court
Montgomery County, Alabama, is not before this Co
by tHe Supreme Court or ALABAMA
Turmp Division
for review ; nor are any of the matters sought to be rais No. 961
in the discontinued motions for new trial filed in the courts
below by these individual defendants. a [Title omitted]
8. The paper filed with the Clerk of the Cirenit Cou
of Montgomery County, Alabama (R. 2108), styled “Noti
of Joining in Appeal,” is not sufficient to constitute
appearance in this Court, and a “uniting” in the app
of The New York Times Company, within the meaning of@
Title 7, § 804, Code of Alabama 1940. .
Wherefore, premises considered, appell
: J ppellee moves th
this Court strike the purported assignments of error asy
a whole, attempted to be filed by said individual defen :
dants in this Court, as aforesaid; and appellee moves sepa$
rately and severally that each such purported assignmen
of error be stricken. And appellee moves, in the alternatives:
[fel 2162) aon if this Court construe actions heretofore dual-appellants herein and to dismiss the appeal
en by the said individual defendants as an attempt ently before this Honorable Court, on the following
8 sppeal from the Jjodement of the Cireuit Court of Mo yands :
omery County, ama, of Ni
any other action of said Court, cnah opel be tismined fEhut therahove named Indivite TE TT pote af
And appellee further prays for such other, further, and d to appeal, pursuant to Title, 4 Bags BOL Code of
different relief as this Court may deem appro riate. , ma, 128 BY Ole Nee a oes or eoaat
# Pp: Z on, a co-defendant in an action originally brought
ne Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama.
That the Appellant, New York Times Company, 2
poration, on the 13th Day of April, 1961, took an ap-
@i to the Supreme Court of Alabama from the judgment
ered in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, on,
it, the 8rd day of November, 1960, in favor of L. B.
n, against the New York Times Company, a Cor-
on, Ralph D. Abernathy, S. S. Seay, Sr., Fred L.
lesworth, and J. Ei. Lowery, defendants below.
Phat prior to the 27th day of April, 1961, an appeal
sot been taken in the name of the individual appel-
. Balph D. Abernathy, S. S. Seay, Sr., Fred L.
orth, and J. H. Lowery, nor had they otherwise
in the appeal.
‘Morton or Inprvmuan Apretiants to Dismiss Motion
ro Srarrke—Filed September 21, 1961
the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices
¢ the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama:
ome now Ralph D. Abernathy, S. S. Seay, Sr., Fred
Shuttlesworth, and J. E. Lowery, Appellants in the
we action (hereinafter called jndividual-appellants),
» iheir attorneys, and move this Honorable Court to
miss the motion filed by the Appellee, L. B. Sullivan,
ng to have this Honorable Court dismiss the assign-
ts of error timely filed in the above action by the in-
Respectfully submitted,
L. B. Sullivan, Appellee, By Sam Rice Baker, M. R
Nachman, Jr, Steiner, Crum & Baker, Attorneys
for Appellee.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
4, That the individual-appellants were summoned + ol. 2195]
appeal before this Honorable Court, at the time when them
appeal was returnable, and to otherwise unite in said ap
peal, if the individual appellants deemed it meet a
proper.
Ty tue Supreme Court or ALsBAMA
The Court met pursuant to adjournment.
resent: All the Justices.
5. That service of the “citation to appeal” was accep!
by their attorney of record and that their said attorne
waived further service by the sheriff of Montgomery’
County, on the 27th day of April, 1961. (See: 1-A, page
2109, of the Transcript filed in the above case.)
[fol. 2194] 6. That the Code of Alabama, 1940, as recom-%
plied in 1958, is identical with the Code of 1907, Seas
2884, as amended by Gen. Acts 1911, p. 589, which is to th
effect that defendants not appealing from a judgmeni
against them may join in another defendant’s appeal an
assign error. See, New Morgan County Building & Low’
Ass'n v. Plemmons, 210 Ala. 16, 97, So. 46, and where
decree was entered in favor of the complainant, and th
first defendant appealed, the second defendant was en
titled to join in the appeal even though no citation wa
issued to the second defendant. Pickard v. Osborn, 261
Ala. 206, 73 So. 2d 542 (1954).
7. That neither the validity of the above named statut
nor the soundness of the cases decided by this Honorable
Court on repeated occasions in reference thereto, is
proper issue in the above styled case of which the Ap.
pellee is a party.
[Title omitted]
Minute Entry or ARcUMENT aNd SuBMISSION
—December 19, 1961
‘ome the parties by attorneys and argue and submit this
se on motions and on merits for decision.
L 2196]
Ty tHe Supreme Court or THE Stars or ALABAMA
Special Term, 1962
3 Div. 961
Tus New York Timms Company, A Corporation
v.
L. B. Sunurvan
Appeal from Montgomery Cireuit Court
8. Wherefore, the individual-appellants respectfully r
quest this Honorable Court to deny Appellee’s motion to
strike the individual-appellants assignments of error as a@
whole, to deny Appellee’s motion to strike any particular
assignment of error, and to further deny in the alter.
native, Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal of yours
individual-appellants.
Opinion
‘oop, Justice
; i j i t of
his is an appeal from a judgment in the amount |
8000.00 awarded as damages in a libel suit. The plain-
iow was L. B. Sullivan, a member of the Board of
2197] Commissioners of the City of Montgomery,
he served as Police Commissioner. The defendants
were The New York Times, a corporation, and four
duals, Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttlesworth,
Seay, Sr., and J. E. Lowery.
Charles S. Conley, Attorney for individual-appel
lants, 530 South Union Street, Montgomery 4
Alabama.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
Peotoenetadl
n addition, The Times made an active effort to keep
ident “stringer” in Montgomery at all times, and as a
er of policy wanted to have three “stringers” in Ala-
at all times.
fhe work of “stringers” was outlined by Sitton as fol-
“When The Times feels there is a news story of note
on in an area where a particular stringer lives, * * *
'imes calls on a stringer for a story.”
“Stringers” fill out blank cards required by The Times,
tch refer to them as “our correspondents.” Detailed
actions are also given to “stringers” by The Times.
ingers” also on occasions initiate stories to The
by telephone recordation. If these stories were not
ied, The Times pays the telephone tolls.
$2199] A “stringer” is usually employed by another
paper, or news agency and is called upon for stories
nally, or offers stories upon his own. A “stringer”
'd at about the rate of a penny a word. No deductions
made from these payments for such things as income
Service of the complaint upon The New York Times w:
by personal service upon Dan McKee as an agent of
defendant, and also by publication pursuant to the pro
sions of Sec. 199(1) of Tit. 7, Code of Alabama 1940.
The Times moved to quash service upon it upon
grounds that McKee was not its agent, and The Times, a
foreign corporation, was not doing business in Alaban
and that service under Sec. 199(1) was improper, and te
sustain either of the services upon it would be unconstite
tional.
After hearing upon the motion to quash, the lower cou
denied such motion.
In this connection the plaintiff presented evidence tend.
ing to show The Times gathers news from national pr
services, from its staff correspondents, and from st
correspondents, sometimes called “stringers.”
The Times maintained a staff correspondent in Atlanta, 2
Claude Sitton, who covered eleven southern states, inchd§
ing Alabama. i
During the period from 1956 through April 1960, regu social security, insurance contributions, etc., and
staff correspondents of The Times spent 153 days in Ala Ringers” are not carried on the payroll of The Times.
bama to gather news articles for submission to The Tim Pe to July 26 for the year 1960, The Times had paid
Forty-nine staff news articles so gathered were introdu wick, the “stringer” in Birmingham, $135.00 for stories
in evidence, epted, and paid McKee $90.00.
Sitton himself was assigned to cover in Alabama, ai further appears that upon receipt of a letter from
[fol. 2198] various times, the so-called “demonstrations, Jaintiff Sullivan demanding a retraction and apology
the hearings of the Civil Rights Commission in Mont. the statements appearing in the advertisement, which
gomery, and proceedings in the United States Disiriet basis of this suit, the general counsel of The Times
Court in Montgomery. During his work in Alabama, hej ts
ew York requested the Assistant Managing Editor of
also conducted investigations and interviews in such places? Times to have an investigation made of the correctness
as Clayton and Union Springs. On some of his visits tom
he facts set forth in the advertisement in question.
Alabama, Sitton would stay as long as a week or ten days. g Times thereupon communicated with McKee and asked
In May of 1960, he came to Alabama for the purpoi : areport. After his investigation, McKee sent a lengthy
of covering the Martin Luther King trial. After his arg ive to The Times setting forth facts which demonstrated
rival in Montgomery, he “understood” an attempt would
clarity the utter falsity of the allegations contained
be made to serve him. He contacted Mr. Roderick McLeo e advertisement. McKee was also paid $25.00 by The
Jr., an attorney representing The Times, and was advised for help given Harrison Salisbury, a staff corre-
to leave Alabama. Shortly after this he called McKee, th
ent of The Times when he was in Alabama on an
“stringer” in Montgomery, and talked generally about thi ment in the spring of 1960.
King trial with him.
Times also has a news service and sells to other
3 stories sent it by its staff correspondents, “string-
ers,” and local reporters. In this connection the lower cou
redit is given for unsold papers and any loss in transit
observed:
:paid by The Times. ;
Claims for losses are handled by baggagemen in Ala-
na, and The Times furnishes claim cards to dealers who
ng them to the baggagemen, The Times paying for
s or incomplete copies upon substantiation by the local
ama baggagemen.
Account par of various Alabama Times dealers show
t eredit was thus given for unsold merchandise.
e are here confronted with the question of in personam
diction acquired by service upon an alleged represen-
[fol. 2200] “Obviously, The Times considered
news gathering activities of these staff corresponden
and ‘stringers’ a valuable and unique complement
the news gathering facilities of the Associated Pre
and other wire services of which The Times is a mem
ber. The stories of the ‘stringers’ appear under th
‘shag’ ‘Special to The New York Times,’ and there wei
59 such ‘specials’ in the period from January 1, 1956,
through April of 1960.”
Advertising ‘The severe limitations of the doctrine of Bank of Augusta
About three quarters of the revenue of The Times com
from advertisements. In 1956, The New York Times Sales,g
Inc., was set up. This is a wholly owned subsidiary of The
Times and its sole function is to solicit advertising for The
Times only.
All of the officials of “Sales” are also officials of Th
‘Times.
Two solicitors for “Sales,” as well as two employees 0}
The Times have at various times come into Alabama seék-§
ing advertising for The Times. Between July 1959 and:
June 3, 1960, one representative spent over a week in this
State, another spent a week and a third spent three days,
Advertising business was solicited in Birmingham, Mont
gomery, Mobile, and Selma. Between January 1, 1960 anda
May 1960, inclusive, approximately seventeen to eightee!
thousand dollars worth of advertising was thus sold i
Alabama, while in the period of 1956 through April 1966,
revenues of $26,801.64 were realized by, The Times fro:
Alabama advertisers.
at it was impossible to determine any established
iat that “we ast step from tuft to tuft, across: the
gl. 2202] morass.” Hutchinson v. Chase and Gilbert, (2nd.
'. 24 139.
: poanaver vy. Neff, 95 US. 714, the court held that the
gurteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution re-
ed a relationship between the State and the person upon
hom the State seeks to exercise personal jurisdiction, and
re must be a reasonable notification to the person upon
m the State seeks to exercise its jurisdiction. The
ired relationship between the State and the person was
to be presence within the State, and as a corollary,
§ state could “extend its process beyond that territory so
to subject either persons or property to its decisions.
1 Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927), the United
s Supreme Court sustained the validity of a non-resi-
snotorist statute which provided that the mere act of
‘ng an automobile in a state should be deemed an ap-
niraent of a named state official as agent to receive ser-
in a suit arising out of the operation of the motor
[fol. 2201] Circulation
The Times sends about 390 daily, and 2,500 Sunday
editions into Alabama.
Shipments are made by mail, rail, and air, with trans]
portation charges being prepaid by The Times. Deale
are charged for the papers.
vehicle on the highway of such state. The dangerous natu
of a motor vehicle was deemed to justify the statute asa
reasonable exercise of police power to preserve the safe
of the citizens of the state, and the consent for service e
in the state in claims arising out of such business. Henry
Doherty and Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623.
Corporations being mere legal entities and incapable of
having physical presence as such in a foreign state, and:
[fol. 2203] its agents being limited by the scope of the
employment, neither the “presence” theory nor the “co:
sent” theory could satisfactorily be applied as a basis f
personal jurisdiction.
As to personal jurisdiction over non-resident corpora
tions, the rule therefore evolved that such jurisdictiog
could be based upon the act of such corporations “doi
business” in a state, though echoes of the “presence”
“consent” doctrines may be found in some decisions p
portedly applying the “doing business” doctrine in suits
against foreign corporations. See Green v. Chicago Bu
lington and Quincy Ry., 205 U.S. 530, when “presence”
a corporation was found to exist from business done in a%
state, and Old Wayne Mutual Life Ass’n. of Indianapol
v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, where implied consent to juri
diction was said to arise from business done in the stai
of the forum. :
The term “doing business” carries no inherent eriteri
It is a concept dependent upon each court’s reaction to;
facts. These reactions were varied, and the conflicting de
cisions evoked the observation of Judge Learned Han@z
then fully justified, but no longer apt since the “moras
has been considerably firmed up by subsequent decisions
the United States Supreme Court.
In International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, et dg
326 U.S. 310, the old bases of personal jurisdiction wei
recast, the court saying:
“To say that the corporation is so far ‘present’ ther
as to satisfy due process requirements .. . is to be
[fol. 2204] the question to be decided. For the terms
‘present’ or ‘presence’ are used merely to symbolize
those activities of the corporation’s agent within the
state which courts will deem to be sufficient to satisfy
the demands of due process . . . Those demands may
be met by such contacts of the corporation with the
state of the forum as make it reasonable, in the con-
text of our federal system of government, to require
the corporation to defend the particular suit which is
- brought there. An ‘estimate of the inconveniences’
which would result to the corporation from a trial
away from its ‘home’ or principal place of business is
relevant in this connection.”
That the new test enunciated is dependent wpon the de-
of contacts and activities exercised in the forum state
made clear, the court saying:
“... due process requires only that in order to sub-
ject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be
not present within the territory of the forum, he have
certain minimum contacts with it such that the main-
tenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.’ bs
Yn accord with the above doctrine is our case of Boyd v.
Farren Paint and Color Co., 254 Ala. 687, 49 So. 2d 559.
4.2205] In 1957 the United States Supreme Court
wnded down its opinion in McGee v. International Life
urance Co., 355 U.S. 220. This case involved the validity
California judgment rendered in a proceeding where
ce was had upon the defendant company by registered
addressed to the respondent at its principal place of
ness in Texas. A California statute subjecting foreign
norations to suit in California on insurance contracts
d not be served with process within its borders. .
e facts show that petitioner’s son, a resident of Cali-
aia, bought a life insurance policy from an Arizona cor-
ion, naming petitioner as beneficiary. Later, respon-
a Texas corporation, agreed to assume the insurance
ccs
obligations of the Arizona com; i i
‘ a : pany, and mailed a re-insu
ance certificate to the son in California, offering Ba i ae
a in accordance with his policy. He accepted the o
an paid premiums by mail from California to the cox
panys office in Texas. Neither corporation ever had
office in California, nor any agent therein, nor had soli
preata any other business in that state. Petitioner s
s of her son’s death to i
Oecie aa: respondent, but it refused
The Texas court refused to enfor i ia j
kas court ce the California judg
ment holding it void under the Fourteenth ‘Amenaingnt P
cause of lack of valid service. McGee v. International Lifi
Aogptanee Company, 288 S.W. 24 579.
n reversing the Texas , i .
ome court, the United States Supre
“Since Pennoyer v. Nef’, 95 US. 714, thi
4, S. thi
held that the Due Process Olause of 1 outs
tributable to the fundamental transformation of our
national economy over the years. Today many com-
mercial transactions touch two or more States and
[fol. 2206a] may involve parties separated by the full
continent. With this increasing nationalization of
commerce has come a great increase in the amount of
business conducted by mail across state lines. At the
same time modern transportation and communication
have made it much less burdensome for a party sued
to defend himself in a State where he engages in eco-
nomic activity.”
nder the above and more recent doctrines, we are clear
fhe conclusion that the activities of The New York
nes, as heretofore set out, are amply sufficient to more
meet the minimal standards required for service upon
representative McKee.
The adjective “string” in MeKee’s designation is redun-
i, and in no wise lessens his status as a correspondent
agent of The New York Times in Alabama. Justice
nds that Alabama be permitted to protect its citizens
m tortious libels, the effects of such libels certainly
spect to foreign corporations. In a continuing pris sarring to a substantial degree in this State.
of evolution this Court accep i
‘consent,’ ‘doing business,’ aan presen hoes oa : Substituted Service
are cnet eneuring. the extent of state judicial pow By Act No. 282, approved 5 August 1953 (Acts of Ala-
of Foreign as eatin ee Henderson, The Pos fama, Reg. Sess. 1953, page 347) amending a prior Act of
Law, « ¥ Moss a iy in American Constitutiona 9, it was provided that any non-resident person, firm,
¥. Waahingtov 26 8 ly in International Shoe Co mership or corporation, not qualified to do business
‘awe pee Neauizer efi 310, the Court decided th: this State, who shall do any business or perform any
dotinn C romuizes uly, that in order to subject sracter of work or service in this State shall by so doing,
present within £ A fomtia Mm personam, if he be not emed to have appointed the Secretary of State to be
tain minimum om 7 ormitory of the forum, he have cer Jawful attorney or agent of such non-resident, upon
nance of th t dea $s with it such that the maint 2207] whom process may be served in any action ac-
x the suit does not offend ‘traditional notio we from the acts in this State, or incident thereto, by
6 non-resident, or his or its agent, servant or employee.
eee Esk oven this long history of litigation a ke act further provides that service of process may
ape early discernible toward expanding the pel ade by service of three copies of the process on the
ary of State, and such service shall be sufficient ser-
pon the non-resident, provided that notice of such
and a copy of the process are forthwith sent by
“os dAtT
ix
applicable to newspaper publishing are the ob-
nae Tae in Consolidated Cosmetics v. D-A Pub.
Inc., et al., 186 F. 2d 906 at 908, relative to the func-
of a magazine publishing company:
“The functions of a magazine publishing company,
obviously, include gathering material to be printed,
obtaining advertisers and subscribers, printing, selling
and delivering the magazines for sale. Each of these,
[fol. 2209] we think, constitutes an essential factor of
the magazine publication business. Consequently if a
non-resident corporation sees fit to perform any one
of those essential functions in a given jarisdiction, it
necessarily follows that it is conducting its activities
jn such a manner as to be subject to jurisdiction.
registered mail by the Secretary of State to the defend:
at his last known address, which shall be stated in
affidavit of the plaintiff, said matter so mailed shall
marked “Deliver to Addressee Only” and “Return Recej
Requested,” and provided further that such return recej
shall be received by the Secretary of State purporting
have been signed by the said non-resident.
it is further provided in the Act that any party desiri
to obtain service under the Act shall make and file in
cause an affidavit stating facts showing that this Act
applicable.
A mere reading of the above Act demonstrates the suf
ciency of the provisions for notice to the non-resident d
fendant, and that service under the provisions of the A
fully meet the requirements of due process,
Counsel for appellant argues however that the services
attempted under Act 282, supra, is defective in two aspe
First, that the affidavit accompanying the complaint is co:
clusionary and does not show facts bringing the A
into operation, and second, that the Act complained of di
not accrue from acts done in Alabama.
[fol. 2208] The affidavit filed by the plaintiff avers
the defendant “ * * * has actually done and is doing busi
ness or performing work or services in the State of
bama; that this cause of action has arisen out of the doings
of such business or as an incident thereof by said defe
dant in the State of Alabama.”
The affidavit does state facts essential to the invocation
of Act 282, supra. We do not think the legislative purposes
in requiring the affidavit was to require a detailed quae
modo of the business done, but rather was to furnish th
Secretary of State with information sufficient upon whi
to perform the duties imposed upon that official. The wt.
mate determination of whether the non-resident has don
business or performed work or services in this State,
whether the cause of action acerues from such acts, i
judicial, and not ministerial, as demonstrated by appel
lant’s motion to quash.
As to appeilant’s second contention that the cause di
not acerue from any acts of The Times in Alabama, it
our conclusion that this contention is without merit.
nd publishes the libel in Alabama, a cause of
pene is Alabama, as well as in the State of the
eating or publishing of the libel. Johnson Publishing Co.
Davis, 271 Ala. 474, 124 So. 2d 441; Weir v. Brotherhood
itroad Trainmen, 221 Ala. 494, 129 So. 267; Bridwell
rotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 227 Ala. 443, 150 55.
Collins v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 226 Ala.
. 133.
4 of substituted service is as broad as the Bey
le limits of due process. Boyd v. Warren Paint
or Co., 254 Ala. 687, 49 So. 2d 559; Ea parte Emerson,
21 So. 2d 914. ;
: nagehtee shows that The Times sent its papers into
ma, with its carrier as its agent, freight prepaid,
h title passing on delivery to the consignee. See Tit. 57,
25, Code of Alabama 1940; 2 Williston on Sales, See.
(b), p. 90. Thence the issue went to newsstands for
to the public in Alabama, in accordance with a long
edi iness practice. .
aol The Tinos or its wholly owned advertising sub-
¥, on several occasions, had agents in Alabama for
tial periods of time soliciting, and procuring in sub-
amounts advertising to appear in The Times.
LioU we
executed contracts for the sale of advertising service
to be performed and actually performed by its own act
within the territory of the forum. We conclude that
the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ”
Furthermore, upon the receipt of the letter from the.
plaintiff demanding a retraction of the matter appearin
in the advertisement, The Times had its string correspo!
dent in Montgomery, Mr. McKee, investigate the truthful
ness of the assertions in the advertisement. The fact tha
McKee was not devoting his full time to the service 0!
The Times is “without constitutional significance.” Script
Inc. v. Carson, Sheriff, et al., 362 U.S. 207.
In WSAZ, Inc. v. Lyons, 254 F. 2d 242 (6th Cir.), th
defendant television corporation was located in West Vir
ginia. Its broadcasts covered several counties in Kentucky, 3
and the defendant contracted for advertising in the Ken. ‘fol. 2212] investigate the truthfulness or falsity of the
inelky counties, all contracts for such advertising being sent atters contained in the advertisement after the letter from
0 the corporation in West Virginia for acceptance. @ the plaintiff. The acts therefore disclose aot Oe se.
pe alleged libel sued upon occurred during a news eneral conditions with reference to newspaper publishing,
roadeast. ; 7 but also specific acts directly connected with, and directly
Service was obtained by serving the Kentucky Secretary Fincident to the business of The Times done in Alabama.
of State under the provisions of a Kentucky statute pro- The service acquired under the provisions of Act No. 282,
viding for such service upon a foreign corporation doin: pra, was valid.
In the present case the evidence shows that the publish-
"ng of advertisements was a substantial part of the busi-
ness of The Times, and its newspapers were regularly sent
Hnto Alabama. Advertising was solicited in Alabama. Its
‘eorrespondent McKee was called upon by The Times to
General Appearance by The Times
The trial court also found that The Times, by including
a ground of the prayer in its motion to quash, the fol-
owing, “ * * * that this court dismiss this action as to The
ew York Times Company, A Corporation, for lack of
arisdiction of the subject matter of said action * * * ” did
hereby go beyond the question of jurisdiction over the
orporate person of The Times, and made a general ap-
earance, thereby waiving any defects in service of process,
‘and thus submitted its corporate person to the jurisdiction.
the court.
The conclusions of the trial court in this aspect are in
coord with the doctrines of a majority of our sister states,
md the doctrines of our own decisions.
Pleadings based upon lack of jurisdiction of the person
in their nature pleas in abatement, and find no special
svor in the law. They are purely dilatory and amount to
more than a declaration by a defendant that he is in
art in a proper action, after actual notice, but because
a defect in service, he is not legally before the court.
Olcese v. Justice’s Court, 156 Cal. 82, 103 P. 317.
“connected” with the business di ion i
ae lone by such corporation in
aD sustaiting the judgment awarded the plaintiff, the
court wrote in connection with the validit i
to support the judgment: TAIT Of tho, Servic
[fol. 2211] “All that is necessary here is that the
cause of action asserted shall be ‘connected’ with the
business done. Defendant asserts that the alleged libel
has no connection with its business done in Kentucky.
But in view of its admission that its usual business was
the business of telecasting and that this included news
programs, and in view of the undisputed fact that the
alleged libel was part of news programs regularly’
broadcast by defendant, this contention has no merit
ance Co. (citation), as wel
was not present in the territory of the forum, it :
tainly had substantial contacts with it. It oui and
iivo
dies
other form of objection based on the ground that the
court does not have jurisdiction of the Perens an ob-
jection in the form of a demurrer, answer, or otherwise,
which substantially pleads to the merits, and, as Ne
have seen, such an objection is presented when the
defendant unites with his demurrer for lack of sane
diction of the person a cause of demurrer for wan o
jurisdiction of the cause or subject of the action, an
that is exactly what was done in this case.
[fol. 2213] In Roberts v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App
714, 159 P. 465, the court observed:
“The motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject!
matter of the action amounted, substantially or in legal’
effect, to a demurrer to the complaint on that groun
At all events, a motion to dismiss on the ground of wan
of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action nec
essarily calls for relief which may be demanded only:
by a party to the record. It has been uniformly
held, as logically it could not otherwise be held, and
furthermore, that where a party appears and asks for
such relief, although expressly characterizing his a
pearance as special and for the special purpose of oby
jecting to the jurisdiction of the court over his person,
he as effectually submits himself to the jurisdiction’
of the court as though he had legally been served wil
process.”
il not excerpt further from the decisions from
Nike juindictions Sr accord with the doctrine of ie above
s, but point out that janumerable authorities ard
‘fol. 2215] large number of states may be found set ory
an annotation to be found in 25 A-L.R. 2d, pages
on v. Wilson, 224 Ala. 299, 140 So. 439, this
de in this
“Jf there was a general appearance mai
case, the lower court had jurisdiction of the person of
? sy: :
lant. (Authorities cited.)
Oat “fling of a demurrer, unless based solely on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the person, con-
stitutes a general appearance.”
The reason dicting such conclusion is stated by the,
Supreme Court of North Carolina, in Dailey Motor Co.
Reaves, 184 N. C. 260, 114 S.E. 175, to be:
“Any course that, in substance, is the equivalent of
an effort by the defendants to try the matter and obta
a judgment on the merits, in any material aspect of
the case, while standing just outside the threshold of
the court, cannot be permitted to avail them. A party
[fol. 2214] will not be allowed to occupy so ambiguous
a position. He cannot deny the authority of the cow
to take cognizance of his action for want of jurisdic-
tion of the person or proceeding, and at the same time
seek a judgment in his favor on the ground that the
is no jurisdiction of the cause of action.
= * * 7 z * ”
Again, in Blankenship v. Blankenship, 263 Ala. 297, 82
o. 2d 335, the court reiterated the above doctrine. -
Thus the doctrine of our cases is in accord with that 0
majority of our sister states that despite an allegation
: ance that it is for the ce purpose. of
i isdieti i ‘oing
tioning the jurisdiction of the court, if matters g
ond the quedo of jurisdiction of the person are set
h, then the appearance is deemed general, and defects
ice are to be deemed waived.
4 conn lower court’s conclusions comet that Tg
ioni jurisdicti cour
“We might cite cases and authorities indefinitely to [Fimes, by questioning the rape sen the | ae
the same purpose and effect, but those to which we x the subject matter of this om 7 ae a general 8 acre
have briefly referred will suffice to show how firmly: : and thereby submitted itself to the j
and unquestionably it is established, that it is not only’ :
dangerous, but fatal to couple with a demurrer, or?
saut
Appellant’s assignment No. 9 is to the effect that
lower court erred in overruling defendant’s demurrers
[fol. 2216] last amended to plaintiff’s complaint.
eae demurrers contain a large number
‘ounds, an e argument of the appellant is di
toward the propositions that: peliant is re
police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the
‘Alabama State College Campus. When the entire stu-
dent body protested to state authorities by refusing to
re-register, their dining hall was padlocked in an at-
tempt to starve them into submission.
* @ ® ® & * *
‘Again and again the Southern violators have an-
swered Dr. King’s peaceful protests with intimidation
= and violence. They have bombed his home almost kill-
ing his wife and child. They have assaulted his person.
They have arrested him seven times—for “speeding,”
“Ioitering,” and similar “offenses.” And now they have
charged him with “perjury’—a felony under which
they could imprison him for ten years.”
1. As a matter of law, the advertisement
; was
published of and concerning the plaintiff, as apeat
in the face of the complaint.
2. The publication was not libelous per se.
3. The complaint was defective in faili g
sia daca. ive in failing to all
4 = The compliant was defective in failing to alleg
acts or innuendo showin, “how plaintiff clai
article had defamed him. J Pininfif' cleimed &
5. The complaint was bad because it stated
causes of action.
Where the words published tend to injure a person ii-
a by them in his reputation, profession, trade or busi-
s, or charge him with an indictable offense, or tends
ring the individual into public contempt are libelous
se. White v. Birmingham Post Co., 238 Ala. 547, 172
“eee HO) 649; Iron Age Pub. Co. v. Crudwp, 85 Ala. 519, 5 So. 332.
that * City aeons i eae and maliciously publis 51.2218] Further, “the publication is not to be measured
City of Montgomery, Nice. tate of ae York, and in th its effects when subjected to the critical analysis of a
of Alabama, of an @ con ama, oe throughout the Stat ined legal mind, bul must be construed and determined
entitled The. New York Renee a e plaintiff, in a papery jis natural and probable effect upon the mind of the
1960, on page 25, in an ad imes, in the issue of March 29, age reader.” White v. Birmingham Post Co., supra.
Rising Wolkes' (a0 ma vertisement entitled ‘Heed Their, ‘We hold that the matter complained of is, under the
Hgeste and py of said advertisement being attached % ove doctrine, libelous per se, if it was published of and
a te o and made a part hereof as Hxhibit ‘A’), false an aintiff.
dtematony sation er eleries #00 (ing upon te cine Words—A. Guide to the Law of Libel,”
of Oe ie ave member of the Board of Commissione sa Philip Wittenberg, we find the following observations,
ity of Montgomery, Alabama, and imputing im ges 227 and 228:
proper conduct to him, and subjecting him to public co pe :
tempt, ridicule and shame, and prejudicing the plaintiff i
his office, profession, trade or business, with an intent
[fol 2217] defame the plaintiff, and particularly the follo
ing false and defamatory matter contained therein:
Both counts of the complaint aver among other thin:
“Phere are groupings which may be finite enough so
that a description of the body is a description of the
members. Here the problem is merely one of evalua-
tion. Is the deseription of the member implicit in the
.. description of the body, or is there a possibility that
a description of the body may consist of a variety of
sons, those jncluded within the charge, and those
excluded from it?
« é ‘ = * = *
‘In Montgomery, Alabama, after student:
E > $ sang “
Country "Tis of Thee” on the State Capitol ne, thet
leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads
dive
x group may maintain an action upon showing that
words apply especially to him. And, further, he
tes the cases approvingly which hold that each of the
sons composing the class may maintain the action.
ey ‘a think this the correct doctrine, and it is certainly
ous, they may recover for a libel descriptive of pported by the great weight of authority —13 Am. &
ke In cases where the group is such that it 392 and note 1; Hardy v. Williamson,
[fol. 2219] definite in number; where its compositi : Ga. 551; s.c. 22 Am. St. Rep. 479.”
is easily recognizable and the forms of its organizati :
are apparent, then recognition of individuals libel
by group defamation becomes clear.”
“The groupings in society today are innumeral
and varied. Chances of recovery for libel of the m
bers of such groups diminish with increasing size,
increase as the class or group decreases. “Whene
a class decreases so that the individuals become ob
judicially know that the City of Montgomery op-
under a commission form of government. (See Act
Gen. Acts of Alabama 1931, page 30.) We further judi-
know that under the provisions of See. 51, Tit. 37,
of Alabama 1940, that under this form of municipal
ament the executive and administrative powers are
ted into departments of (1) public health and public
y, (2) streets, parks and public property and improve-
s, and, (3) accounts, finances, and public affairs; and
the assignments of the commissioners may be changed
y time by a majority of the board.
9991] The appellant contends that the word “police”
passes too broad a group to permit the conclusion
the statement in the advertisement was of and concern-
plaintiff since he was not mentioned by name.
“We cannot go b é . think it common knowledge that the average person
Tt does not hee aS ie ie ere ies 3 that municipal agents, such as police and firemen,
scattered a generality or described © lanwe nee ‘ethers, are under the control and direction of the city
such that no one could have been personally = : ee g body, and more particularly under the direction
by it. Perhaps the plaintiff will be able to satisfy
jury of the reality of his position that the article ¥
directed at him as an individual and did not miss
mark.”
The same principle is aptly stated i
sig WE 08; Ss pepe & iptly stated in Gross v. Canto:
“An action for defamation lies only in
defendant has published the matter ‘of aid aati
the plaintiff.’ . . . Consequently an impersonal reproad
of an indeterminate class is not actionable ....‘B
if the words may by any reasonable application, im
port a charge against several individuals, under a0
general description or general name, the plaintiff
ne mer te go on to trial, and it is for the jury
lecide whether the charge i
oeowred te the meres has the personal applicatiog
mance or deficiencies of such groups, praise or erit-
s usually attached to the official in complete control
ge body. Such common knowledge and belief has its
a in established legal patterns as illustrated by See. 51,
2220] And in Wofford v. Meeks, 129 Ala. 349, 30
we find this court saying: e Hoyos v. Thornton, 259 N.Y. App. Div. 1, a resi-
Monticello, New York, a town of 4000 population,
plished in a local newspaper an article in which she
that a proposed acquisition of certain property by
anicipality was “another scheme to bleed the tax-
and force more families to lose their homes. * * *
to me it might be better to relieve the tension on
“Mr. Freeman, in his note to case of
State, 70 Am. St. Rep. 756, after weviowing ihe
says: “We apprehend the true rule is that, althou
the libelous publication is directed against a partion
class of persons or a group, yet any one of that ¢
atv
the taxpayers right now and get ready for the golden
* * * and not be dictated to by gangsters and Chambers off
Commerce.”
The mayor and the three trustees of Monticello broug!
libel actions. The court originally considering the com
plaint dismissed the actions on the grounds that the plain,
tiffs were not mentioned in the article, and their connee s
tion with the municipality was not stated in the complai ) If there is no evidence of malice, would you xemmeeie
{fol. 2222] In reversing ‘this decision the Appellate D nish The Times? (4) Is there any reaso: Pwor of The
sion of the Supreme Court wrote: “There is no room for use you to hesitate to return a verdict in fa
doubt as to who were the targets of her attack. Their ide
tity is as clear to local readers from the article as if they.
were mentioned by name.” :
The court did not err in overruling the demurrer in the
aspect that the libelous matter was not of and concerning
the plaintifis.
The advertisement being libelous per se, it was not neces-:
sary to allege special damages in the complaint. Iron Age
Pub. Co. v. Crudup, 85 Ala. 519, 5 So. 332.
Where, as in this case, the matter published is libelous
per se, then the complaint may be very simple and brie!
(Penry v. Dozier, 161 Ala. 292, 49 So. 909), and there
is no need to set forth innuendo. White v. Birmingham
Post Co., 233 Ala. 547, 172 So. 649. Further, a complaint
in all respects similar to the present was considered snff-
cient in our recent case of Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis,
271 Ala. 474, 124 So, 2d 441.
The Johnson case, supra, is also to the effect that where
a newspaper publishes a libel in New York, and by distribu.
tion of the paper further publishes the libel in Alabama,
a cause of action arises in Alabama, as well as in New York,
and that the doctrine of A ge-Herald Pub. Co. v. Huddleston,
207 Ala. 40, 92 So. 193, concerned venue, and venue statutes
do not apply to a foreign corporation not qualified to do:
business in Alabama. :
in view of the principles above set forth, we hold that
the lower court did not err in overruling the demurrer:
[fol. 2223] to the complaint in the aspects contended foré
and argued in appellant’s brief.
Assignments of error Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17, relate
the court’s refusal to permit certain questions to be put)
to the venire in qualifying the jurors.
i lawfully
ellant contends that The Times was un! 1}
wrved ot its right to question the my route iseaettar
istence of bias or prejudice. The tri
stow four questions which were in ores cree xe
icti ini disposition w:
we any conviction, opinion or pre-dis Me et (2)
to reader a verdict against The nes?
: ee at Foi been plaintiffs in litigation in this court?
The ive j indi that they
eetive jurors had already indicated
5 ee aaoneanad vith any of the facts in the cen a
ey had not discussed the case with anyone ROL ad te
m discussed in their presence nor were they es a
any manner with the contentions of the paras. Ppel-
nt was permitted to propound at some length other gues
ns designed to determine whether there was any opi on
pre-disposition which would influence the Juror’s oe a3
ment. The jurors indicated that there was no ronson -
ever which would cause them to hesitate to return
ict f Times. . .
Bee ae a, Code of Alabama 1940, gives the parties
broad right to interrogate jurors as to interest or S
his right is limited by propriety and penne ta
rol. 9234 exercised within the sound discretion 0: 4 ca
art. We cannot say that this discretion has been al a e
re similar questions have already been answer! et
prospective jurors. Dyer v. State, 241 Ala. 679, ,
31
: i ivably revealed
1 d question could have conceivably
Oe hich wad not already brought out by specie s
terrogation of the prospective jurors. Considering "
smpleteness of the qualification and the emoteness 0
2 Fecond question, the exclusion of that inquiry by the
court will not be regarded as an abuse of discretion.
loah v. State, 38 Ala. App. 531, 89 So. 2d 231. a al
ellant contends that without the right to adequa é ly
ie the prospective jurors, a seteneen ene ae S
e that his case is being tried before a j
h T veots the federal constitutional standards laid down
1160
at
in such decisions as Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717. It iss
cient to say that the jurors who tried this case were a:
repeatedly, and in various forms, by counsel for The Tim
about their impartiality in every reasonable manner.
Appellant’s assignment of error 306 pertains to the
fusal of requested charge T. 22, which was affirmative
nature.
Tt is appellant’s contention that refusal of said chai
contravenes Amendment One of the United States Con:
tution and results in an improper restraint of freedom
the press, and further, that refusal of said charge is viol
tive of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal consti
tution. 4
[fol. 2225] In argument in support of this assignment
counsel for appellant asserts that the advertisement was
only an appeal for support of King and “thousands
Southern Negro students” said to be “engaged in wi
spread non-violent demonstrations in positive affirmati
of the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by
U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
The fallacy of such argument is that it overlooks
libelous portions of the advertisement which are the vei
crux of this suit.
The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution does no!
protect libelous publications. Near v. Minnesota, 283 US
697; Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36
Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568; Beauharn
v, Illinois, 343 US. 250.
The Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State E
action and not private action. Collins v. Hardyman, 34% :
ed, such injury being implied. Johnson Publishing Co.
supra. ;
ssigaments 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, and 32, relate to
action of the court in overruling defendant’s objections
1.2226] to questions propounded to six witnesses pre-
ted by the plaintiff as to whether they associated the
ements in the advertisement with the plaintiff. All of
witnesses answered such questions in such manner as
indicate that they did so associate the adverti cement
“Without such evidence the plaintifi’s cause would of
essity fall, for that the libel was of or concerning the
ntiff is the essence of plaintifi’s claim.
Hbel, among other things, provides that “ * * * and if
allegation be denied, the plaintiff must prove, on the
the facts showing that the defamatory matter was
shed or spoken of him.” This statute would seem to
ire the proof here admitted. And in Wofford v. Meeks,
£59 Ala. 349, 30 So. 625, the court stated that where the
is against a group, any one of that group may main-
pan action “upon a showing that the words apply spe-
to him,” and in Chandler v. Birmingham N ews Co.,
‘Ala. 208, 95 So. 886, this court said, “Any evidence
h tended to show it was not ‘of and concerning the
ntiff’ was material and relevant to the issue.” ;
: Hope v. Hearst Consolidated Publications, (2nd Cir,
G1), 294 Fed. 2d 681, the court said as to the admissi-
y of testimony that a witness believed the defamatory
stter referred to the plaintiff:
“Tp this regard it appears that the New York exclu-
sionary rule represents a distinct, if not a lone, minor-
ity voice. The vast majority of reported cases, from
both American and British courts, espouse the ad-
mission of such evidence; the text writers similarly
advocate its admissibility.
« * * * * * *
fol. 2227] “The plaintiff as a necessary element in
abiaining relief, would have to prove that the coercive
were understood by customers, to be aimed at him.
eases where the plaintiff was not specifically named,
e exact issue now before us would be presented.
US. 651.
Assignment of error No. 306 is without merit. :
Appellant’s assignment of error No. 94 also pertains to
the court’s refusal of its requested charge T. 22.
Appeliant’s argument under this assignment asserts i
was entitled to have charge T. 22 given because of the plain-
tiff’s failure to plead or prove special damages.
In libel action, where the words are actionable per se,
the complaint need not specify damages (Johnson v. Rob
ertson, 8 Port. 486), nor is proof of pecuniary injury
divs
i ipi libel. See
cerned in the eyes of any recipient of ithe
more y. Mills, 33 Ala. App. 248, 32 So. 2d 769, and cases
enment of error NO. asserts error arising out of
3 erts er
ig + of error No. 63 as
In accord with the doctrine that the instant evide
was admissible may be cited, among other authorities Me
v. Putnam Oil Co., (Or.), 246 P. 2d 509; Red River Va
Pub. Co., Inc. v. Bridges, (Tex. Civ. Ap.) 254 S.W. 2d & o Ae
Colbert v. Journal Pub. Co. (N.M.) 2 P. 146; Prosser ® ‘ollowing instance during the cpscanEanen
Callis et al. (Ind.) 19 N.H. 735; Martin County Bank hon Aronson, a witness for The rey Me eeeous
Day (Minn.) 75 N.W. 1115; Ball v. Evening American P: own by the record, had been Pot e y angel aad
Co. (IIL) 86 N.E. 1097; Children v. Shinn (Iowa) 150 N. ections,.and considerable colloquy between
864. :
Appellant’s assignments of error 22, 26, 28, 31, 33,
34, relate to the action of the court in overruling objecti
to certain questions propounded to plaintiff’s witne:
Blackwell, Kaminsky, Price, Parker, and White, which q
tions were to the effect that if the witnesses believed th
matter contained in the advertisement, would they hi
thought less of the plaintiff. 3
Counsel for appellant argues that the questions “ * *%
inescapably carried the implication that the witness thou
the ad was published of and concerning the plain
Hach and every one of the above named witnesses
testified previous to the instant questions, that they
associated the City Commissioners, or the plaintiff,
the advertisement upon reading it. The questions wera
therefore based upon the witnesses’ testimony that
associated the advertisement with the plaintiff, and noe
merely an implication that might be read into the questior
[fol. 2228] Counsel further argues that the question
hypothetical im that none of the witnesses testified
believed the advertisement, or that they thought less
the plaintiff.
While we think such evidence of small probative valu
yet it would have relevancy not only as to its effect upox
the recipient, but also as to the effect such publication mag
reasonably have had upon other recipients. See “Defa
tion,” 69 Harv. L. R., 877, at 884.
This aside, we cannot see that the answers elicited we:
probably injurious to the substantial rights of the appe
lant. Sup. Court Rule 45. Proof of common knowledge
without injury, though it be unnecessary to offer such prool
Clearly we think it common knowledge that publicati
of matter libelous per se would, if believed, lessen the
«Q. Would you state now sir, what that word means
to a whether it has only a time meaning or whether
it also to your eye and mind has a cause and effect
meaning?
| «Myr. Embry: Now, we object to that, Your Honor.
That’s a question for the jury to determine—
[fol. 9999] “The Court: Well, of course, it probably
will be a question for the jury, but this gentleman here
is a very high official of The Times and I should think
he can testify— ;
“Mr. Daly: I object to that, Your Honor. He isn’t
a high official of The Times at all— ;
“Mr. Embry: He is just a man that has a routine
job there, Your Honor. He is not— ,
“The Court: Let me give you an exception to the
Court’s ruling.
“Mr. Embry: We except.”
do not think it can be fairly said that the record
ses a ruling by the trial court on counsel’s objection
e use of the term “very high official.” The raling made
me court is palpably to the question to which the ob-
Gon was interposed. Counsel interrupted the court to
to the term “very high official,” and second counsel
“He is just a man that has a routine job there,
Honor.” Apparently this explanation satisfied coun-
‘as the court’s use of the term was not pursued to the
nt of obtaining a ruling upon this: aspect, and the
ruling was upon the first, and main objection. ,
Aronson testified that he had been with The Times
ty-five years, and was Assistant Manager of the
iivt
Advertising Acceptability Department of The Times, a ewise, at no time was any objection interposed to
was familiar with the company’s policies regarding ad me presence of photographers in the courtroom.
tising in all its aspects, that is, sales, acceptability, ete.,
that advertisements of organizations and committees
express a point of view comes within the witness’s partie
for a new trial. This being so, the court was confined
2 the hearing on the motion to matters contained
lar duties. the record of the trial. Thomason v. Silvey, 1283 Ala.
[fol. 2230] In view of the above background of Mr. Aro S26 So. 644; Alabama Gas Co. v. Jones, 244 Ala. 413,
son, and the state of the record immediately above refei So. 2d 873.
signment of error 78 pertains to an alleged error oc-
ng in the court’s oral charge. ;
n this connection the record shows the following:
“Mr. Embry: We except, your Honor. We except
to the oral portions of Your Honor’s Charge wherein
Your Honor charged on libel per se. We object to
that portion of Your Honor’s Charge wherein Your
Honor charged as follows: ‘So, as I said, if you are
reasonably satisfied from the evidence before you, con-
jdered in connection with the rules of law the Court
as stated to you, you would come to consider the ques-
Hon of damages and, where as here, the Court has
ruled the matter complained of proved to your reason-
able satisfaction and aimed at the plaintiff in this case,
[fol. 2232] is libelous per se then punitive damages may
to, we are unwilling to east error upon the lower court
the instance brought forth under assignment No. 63.
Assignment of error No. 81 is to the effect that the lows
court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a new tri
Such an assignment is an indirect assignment of all of #
grounds of the motion for a new trial which appellant
fit to bring forward and specify as error in his brief.
The appellant under this assignment has sought to arg
several grounds of its motion for a new trial.
Counsel, in this connection, seeks to cast error on
lower court because of an alleged prejudicial state:
made by counsel for the appellee in his argument to
jury.
The record fails to show any objections were interpo:
to any argument by counsel for any of the litigants duriz
the trial. There is therefore nothing presented to us f
review in this regard. Woodward Iron Co. v. Earley,
Ala. 556, 25 So. 2d 267, and cases therein cited.
Counsel also argues two additional grounds contained
the motion for a new trial, (1) that the appellant was d
prived of due process in the trial below because of hosti
articles in Montgomery newspapers, and (2) because
the presence of photographers in the courtroom and
publication of the names and pictures of the jury p
to the rendition of the verdict.
As to the first point, the appellant sought to introds
in the hearing on the motion for a new trial newspap ‘ : ;
articles dated prior to, and during, the trial. The em satisfaction that the words objected *o
refused to admit these articles. and concerning him. he Feason’ for
[fol. 2231] At no time during the course of the trial b e being that while any one of a lags oe oe nae
did the appellant suggest a continuance, or a change atain an action because of oe ; ene ‘e ie
venue, or that it did not have knowledge of said arti must show to the reasonable satisfactio
“The Court: Overruled and you have an exception.”
eding the above exception the court had instructed
“Now, as stated. the defendan st the ad
q in t Lai Sulliva:
-eomplained of does not name the plain Ss
ea and that the ad is not published of and concern-
Fine him.... The plaintiff, Sullivan, as a member of
he group referred to must show by the evidence to
fnumerable authorities enunciating the above doctrines
be found in 18 Als. Dig., Trial, Key Nos. 295(1)
mgh 295(11). ; ;
ifically, in reference to portions of oral instructions
2 might be criticized because tending to be invasive of
rovince of the jury, we find the following stated in
iC.J.S., Trial, Sec. 438, the text being amply supported
tations:
“A charge which, taken as a whole, correctly submits
the issues to the jury will not be held objectionable be-
eause certain instructions taken in their severalty, may
be subject to criticism on the ground they invade the
province of the jury, * * *.”
jury that the words he complained of apply especia
to him or are published of and concerning him.
= * ea * * * 2
“So, at the very outset of your deliberations
come to this question: Were the words complained
in counts 1 and 2 of this complaint spoken of and «
cerning the plaintiff, Sullivan? That’s the burden
[fol. 2233] has. He must show that to your reasonal
satisfaction and if the evidence in this case does
reasonably satisfy you that the words published w
spoken of or concerning Sullivan or that they rela’
to him, why then of course he would not be enti
to any damages and you would not go any further,’
this same effect, see Abercrombie v. Martin and a oyt
227 Ala. 510, 150 So. 497; Choctaw Coal and Mining
B= vy. Dodd, 201 Ala. 622, 79 So. 54. ;
Ve have carefully read the court’s entire oral instruc-
to the jury. It is a fair, accurate, and clear expression
e governing legal principles. In light of the entire
we consider that the portion of the charge com-
‘ed of to be inconsequential, and unlikely to have af-
5] fected the jury’s conclusions. We do not con-
it probable that this appellant wai injured in any
ntial right by this alleged misleading instruction in
of the court’s repeated and clear exposition of the
iples involved, and the numerous written charges given
‘endant’s request further correctly instructing the jury
he premises.
@ individual appellants, Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred
battlesworth, S. S. Seay, Sr., and J. B. Lowery have
filed briefs and arguments in their respective appeals.
of the assignments of error in these individual
is are governed by our discussion of the principles
ng to the appeal of The Times. We therefore will
nfine our review in the individual appeals to those
menis that may present questions not already cov-
In addition the court gave some eleven written char;
at defendant’s request, instructing the jury in substa
that the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish to
reasonable satisfaction of the jury that the advertisem
in question was of and concerning the plaintiff, and
without such proof the plaintiff could not recover.
Tt is to be noted that in the portion of the complain
of instructions excerpted above, the court first cautio,
the jury they were to consider the evidence in connects
with the rules of law stated to them. The court had p
viously made it crystal clear that the jury were to de’
mine to their reasonable satisfaction from the evidence
the words were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff.
Counsel for appellant contend that because of the wo:
“and aimed at the plaintiff in this case,” the instructic
would be taken by the jury as a charge that the adverti
ment was of and concerning the plaintiff, and hence
instruction was invasive of the province of the jury.
Removed from the full context of the court’s instructio
the charge complained of, because of its inept mode
expression, might be criticized as confused and mislea
[fol. 2234] However, it is basic that a court’s oral cha:
must be considered as a whole and the part excepted @
should be considered in the light of the entire instrueti
Tf as a whole the instructions state the law correctly, the
is no reversible error even though a part of the instructio:
if considered alone, might be erroneous.
In their assignment of error No. 41, the individual
pellants assert that the lower court erred in its oral inst:
tions as to ratification of the use of their names in thé
publication of the advertisement. The instructions of th
court in this regard run for a half a page or better.
record shows that an exception was attempted in the follow.
ing language:
endant’s objection to the way one of the plaintiff's coun-
pronounced the word “negro.” When this objection was
erposed, the court instructed plaintiffs counsel to “read
just like it is,” and counsel replied, “I have been pro-
yancing it that way all my life.” The court then instructed
unsel to proceed. No further objections were interposed,
r exceptions reserved. .
We consider this assignment mere quibbling, and cer-
inly nothing is presented for our review in the state of
e record.
@ Counsel have also argued assignments to the effect that
or infects this record because, (1) the courtroom was
egated during the trial below, and (2) the trial judge
as not duly and legally elected because of alleged depriva-
Kon of voting rights to negroes. ; .
either of the above matters were presented in the trial
,w, and cannot now be presented for review. .
‘Counsel further argues that the appellants were deprived
fair trial in that the trial judge was, by ae of ers
: a member
The refusal of a large number of charges applicabl 2 No. 1g, 1989 Doe 7 ete oe emery Ubanty. This act
only to the individual appellants are also made the base the iy, Cre State, 260 Ala. 66, 68 So. 2d 14.
of numerous assignments of error. We have read all suckgiggess= mstitutional. Reeves v. State, he .
refused charges, and each and every one is faulty. s
Several of the charges instruct the jury that if the j s
“find” etc., while others use the term “find from the evi.
dence.” These charges were refused without error in tha’
the predicate for the jury’s determination in a civil s
is “reasonably satisfied from the evidence.” A court
not he reversed for its refusal of charges which are no
expressed in the exact and appropriate terms of the law3
W. P. Brown and Sons Lumber Co. v. Rattray, 238 Als.
406, 192 So. 851.
Others of the refused charges, not affirmative in natur
are posited on “belief,” or “belief from the evidence.”
judgment will not be reversed or affirmed because of
refusal, or giving, of “belief” charges. Sovereign Camj
W.O.W. v. Sirten, 234 Ala. 421, 175 So. 589; Pan America:
Petroleum Co. v. Byars, 228 Ala. 372, 153 So. 616; Casi
Restaurant v. McWhorter, 35 Ala. App. 332, 46 So. 2d 58
[fol. 2237] Specification of error number 6 asserts erro
in the court’s action in refusing to sustain the individ
“Lawyer Gray: Your Honor, we except to the Court's
charge dealing with ratification as well as the Cour!
charge in connection with the advertisement being
belous per se in behalf of each of the individual defen-#
dants.”
[fol. 2236] The ahove attempted exception was descrip
tive of the subject matter only, and is too indefinite to invi
our review. Birmingham Ry. Light and Power Co.
Friedman, 187 Ala. 562, 65 So. 939; Conway v. Robinse
216 Ala. 495, 113 So. 531; Birmingham Ry. Light and Powe:
Co. v. Jackson, 198 Ala. 378, 73 So. 627.
tion, it is sufficient to point out that this point was not
ed in the trial below, and must be considered as having
3. 2238] been waived. De Moville v. Merchants & Farm-
Bank of Greene County, 237 Ala. 347, 186 So. 704.
signments 42, 121, 122, assert error in the court’s re-
to hear the individual appellant’s motions for new
, and reference in brief is made to pages 2058-2105
the record in this connection.
These pages of the record merely show that the indi-
wa} appellants filed and presented to the court their
wective motions for a new trial on 2 December 1960, and
same were continued until 16 December 1960. On 16
mber 1960, the respective motions were continued to
January 1961. No further orders in reference to the
‘ons of the individual appellants appear in the record,
no judgment on any of the motions of the individual
Hants appears in the record. . .
motions of the individual appellants therefore be-
discontinued after 14 January 1961.
-Mr. Bancroft further testified that The Times received
jetter from the plaintiff dated 7 April 1960, demanding a
traction of the advertisement. They replied by letter
al. 2240] dated 15 April 1960, in which they asked Mr.
ivan what statements in the advertisement reflected
There being no judgments on the motion for a new t
of the individual appellants, and they having become 4d
continued, those assignments by the individual appellanig
attempting to raise questions as to the weight of the e
dence, and the excessiveness of the damages are ineffecti
and present nothing for review. Such matters can be pi
sented only by a motion for a new trial. See 2 Ala. Di
Appeal and Error, Key Nos. 294(1) and 295, for i
merable authorities.
Other matters are argued in the briefs of the individ
appellants. We conclude they are without merit and
not invite discussion, though we observe that some of
matters attempted to be brought forward are insufficien
presented to warrant review.
ter the receipt of the letter from the plaintiff, The
mes had McKee, its “string” correspondent in Montgom-
, and Sitton, its staff correspondent in Atlanta, investi-
the truthfulness of the allegations in the advertisement.
Pheir lengthy telegraphic reports, introduced in evidence
owed that the Alabama College officials had informed
n that the statement that the dining room at the College
been padlocked to starve the students into submission
absolutely false; that all but 28 of the 1900 students
i re-registered and meal service was furnished all stu-
ts on the campus and was available even to those who
not registered, upon payment for the meals; that the
tgomery police entered the campus upon request of the
ege officials, and then only after a mob of rowdy stu-
had threatened the negro college custodian, and after
lege policeman had fired his pistol in the air several
in an effort to control the mob. The city policy had
ely tried to see that the orders of the Alabama College
is were not violated.
tion’s report contained the following pertinent state-
ts:
« * * * Paragraph 3 of the advertisement, which
begins, ‘In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang’
and so forth, appears to be virtually without any
foundation. The students sang the National Anthem.
ever at any time did policy ‘ring’ the campus although
{fol. 2241] on three occasions they were deployed near
the campus in large numbers. Probably a majority
of the student body was at one time or another in-
volved in the protest but not the ‘entire student body.’
have been unable to find anyone who has heard that
e campus dining room was padlocked. * * * In ref-
ence to the 6th paragraph, beginning: ‘Again and
[fol. 2239] Evidence on the merits
The plaintiff first introduced the depositorial testimo:
of Harding Bancroft, secretary of The Times.
Mr. Bancroft thus testified that one John Murray bro’
the original of the advertisement to The Times where
was delivered to Gershon Aronson, an employee of
Times. A Thermo-fax copy of the advertisement was tur
over to Vincent Redding, manager of the advertising
partment, and Redding approved it for insertion in '
Times. The actual insertion was done pursuant to an adv
tising insertion order issued by the Union Adve
Serviee of New York City.
Redding determined that the advertisement was endors
by a large number of people whose reputation for
he considered good.
Numerous news stories from its correspondents, pubs
lished in The Times, relating to certain events which form
the basis of the advertisement and which had been publish
from time to time in The Times were identified. Th
news stories were later introduced in evidence as exhil
Also introduced through this witness was a letter f:
A. Philip Randolph certifying that the four individ
defendants had all given permission to use their n:
in furthering the work of the “Committee to Defend Mai
Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the Sou!
again the Southern violators’ and so forth, Dr.
home was bombed during the bus boycott some
years ago. His wife and child were there but were
(repeat not} injured in any way. King says that
only assault against his person took place when
was arrested some four years ago for loitering ow
a courtroom. The arresting officer twisted
arm behind the minister’s back in taking him to
booked. * * * 7”
. Strickland, a police officer of the city of Mont-
y, testified that he had arrested King on the loitering
¢ after King had attempted to force his way into an
y overcrowded courtroom, Strickland having been
eted not to admit any additional persons to the court-
unless they had been subpoenaed as a witness. At no
@id he nor anyone else assault King in any manner,
‘King was permitted to make his own bond and was
3243] In his own behalf the plaintiff, Sullivan, tes-
that he first read the advertisement in the Mayor’s
fn Montgomery. He testified that he took office as 4
nissioner of the City of Montgomery m October 1959,
d occupied that position since. Mr. Sullivan testified
‘wpon reading the advertisement he associated it with
if, and in response to a question on cross-examination,
4 that he felt that he had been greatly injured by it.
. Sullivan gave further testimony as to the falsity of
ertions contained in the advertisement.
the defense, Gershon Aronson, testified that the
fsement was brought to him by John Murray and
we scanned it hurriedly before the advertisement was
40 the Advertising Acceptability Department of The
ork Times. As to whether the word “they” as used
paragraph of the advertisement charging that
ern violators” had bombed King’s home, assaulted
‘on, arrested him seven times, ete., referred to the
people as “they” in the paragraph wherein it was
that the Alabama College students were padlocked
sf their dining room in an attempt to starve them
sbmission and that the campus was ringed with police,
sd with shotguns, tear gas, ete., Aronson first stated,
it may have referred to the same people. It is rather
to tell” and a short while later regent stated
think now it probably refers to the same people.
anes was aid in the vicinity of $4,800 for publish-
isement.
ard. Vinoent Redding, assistant to the manager
dvertising Acceptability Department of The Times,
that he examined the advertisement and approved
These reports further show that King had been ari
only twice by the Montgomery police.- Once for spee
on which charge he was convicted and paid a $10.00
and once for “loitering” on which charge he was convict
and fined $14.00, this fine being paid by the then poli
commissioner whom the plaintiff suceeeded in office.
Mr. Bancroft further testified that upon receipt of
letter from John Patterson, Governor of Alabama, 7%
Times retracted the advertisement as to Patterson,
though in The Times’ judgment no statement in the ad
tisement referred to John Patterson either personally
as Governor of Alabama. However, The Times felt
(fol. 2242] since Patterson held the high office of Gove
of Alabama and believed that he had been libeled,
should apologize.
Grover ©. Hall, Jr., Arnold D. Blackwell, William
MacDonald, Harry W. Kaminsky, H. M. Price, Sr., Williss
M. Parker, Jr., and Horace W. White, all residents g
the city of Montgomery, as well as the plaintiff, testi
over the defendant’s objections that upon reading the
vertisement they associated it with the plaintiff, who
Police Commissioner.
E. Y. Lacy, Lieutenant of detectives for the city
Montgomery, testified that he had investigated the bombi
of King’s home in 1955. This was before the plaintiff
sumed office as Commissioner of Police. One bomb fa
to explode, and was dismantled by Lacy. In attempting
apprehend the bombers, “The Police Department did ex!
sive research work with overtime and extra personnel
we did everything that we knew including inviting
working with other departments throughout the coun’
ditt
spported the work of the Committee, he felt they need not
susult them.
The individual defendants’ names were then placed on
he advertisement under the legend “We in the South who
struggling daily for dignity and freedom warmly en-
erse this appeal.”
Murray further testified that he and Rustin rewrote the
Avertisement “to get money” and “to project the ad in
most appealing form from the material we were get-
”
it, seeing nothing in it to cause him to believe it was fa
and further he placed reliance upon the endorsers “who
reputations I had no reason to question.” On cross-ex!
ination Mr. Redding testified he had not checked with
of the endorsers as to their familiarity with the even
in Montgomery to determine the accuracy of their stat
ments, nor could he say whether he had read any new
accounts concerning such events which had been publisl
in The Times. The following is an excerpt from Mr. Re
ding’s cross-examination:
«Q. Now, Mr. Redding, wouldn’t it be a fair stat
ment to say that you really didn’t check this ad ai
for accuracy?
“A. That’s a fair statement, yes.”
‘As to the accuracy of the advertisement, Murray testi-
“Well, that did not enter the—it did not enter into
consideration at all except we took it for granted that
jt was aceurate—we took it for granted that it was
accurate—they were accurate—and if they hadn’t been
[fol. 2246] —I mean we would have stopped to question
ji—I mean we would have stopped to question it. We
had every reason to believe it.”
Mr. Harding Bancroft, Secretary of The Times, who
testimony taken by deposition had been introduced by
plaintiff, testified in the trial below as a witness for @
defendants. His testimony is substantially in accord wit
that given in his deposition and we see no purpose in
additional delineation of it. : ‘The individual defendants all testified to the effect that
‘As a witness for the defense, John Murray testified tha ey had not authorized The New York Times, Philip Ran-
he was a writer living in New York City. He was a volu Soiph, the “Committee to Defend Martin Luther King,”
teer worker for the “Committee to Defend Martin Luthengy ., nor any other person to place their names on the ad-
King,” ete., and as such was called upon, together wit jsement, and in fact did not see the contents of the
two other writers, to draft the advertisement in question, yertisement until receipt of the letter from the plaintiff.
[fol. 2245] hese three were given material by Bayard] : Whey all testified that after receiving the letter demand-
Rustin, the Executive Director of the Committee, as a bas’ :
for composing the advertisement. Murray stated that Rr
tin is a professional organizer, he guessed along the line
raising funds. Murray knew that Rustin had been
ated with the War Resisters League, among others.
After the first proof of the advertisement was rea
Rustin called him to his office and stated he was dissai
fied with it as it did not have the kind of appeal it should
have if it was to get the response in funds the Commit é
needed.
Rustin then stated they could add the names of the
dividnal defendants since by virtue of their membe
in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, wh
eto, nor had they contacted any person or group con-
g the advertisement or its retraction.
Amount of Damages
Wnder assignment of error No. 81, The Times argues
grounds of its motion for a new trial asserting that
damages awarded the plaintiff are excessive, and the
t of bias, passion, and prejudice.
n Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, supra, Justice
ly in a rather definitive discussion of a court’s ap-
h to the question of the amount of damages awarded
actions made the following observations:
“***The punishment by way of damages is upon which they might award punitive damages.
tended not alone to punish the wrongdoer, but as a his being true, neither the law nor the evidence fur-
terrent to others similarly minded. Liberty Natio F niches us any standard hy which we can ascertain cer-
Life Insurance Co. v. Weldon, supra; Advertiser Co. tainly that they were excessive. The trial court heard
Jones, supra; Webb v. Gray, 181 Ala. 408, 62 So.
[fol. 2247] “Where words are libelous per se and
heretofore stated we think the published words in
present case were libelous per se, the right to da
ages results as a consequence, because there is a
deney of such libel to injure the person libeled in
reputation, profession, trade or business, and proge
of such pecuniary injury is not required, such injury
being implied. Advertiser Co. v. Jones, supra; We
v. Gray, supra; Brown v. Publishers: George Knap
& Co., 213 Mo. 655, 112 S.W. 474; Maytag Co. @ . [fol. 2249]
Meadows Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 45 F. 24 299.
_ “Because damages are presumed from the circu
tion of a publication which is libelous per se, it is
necessary that there be any correlation between
actual and punitive damages. Advertiser Co. v. Jone
supra; Webb v. Gray, supra; Whitcomb v. Hi
Corp., 329 Mass. 193, 107 N-E. 2d 295.
“The extent of the circulation of the libel is a pro
matter for consideration by the jury in assessing pl
tiff’s damages. Foerster v. Ridder, Sup., 57 N.Y.
668; Whitcomb v. Hearst Corp., supra. :
* = x « * . @
expression and demeanor, and hence was in a, better
position to judge of the extent of punishment which the
evidence warranted than we are, who must form our
conclusions upon the mere narrative of the transcript.
This court, in treating of excessive verdicts in cases 2
which punitive damages could be awarded, through
Justice Haralson spoke and quoted as follows: “There
is no legal measure of damages in cases of this char-
”?
* * * * * * *
' «The Supreme Court of Missouri considered the
question in Brown v. Publishers: George Knapp & Co.,
913 Mo. 655, 112 S.W. 474, 485, and said: “The action
‘or libel is one to recover damages for injury to man’s
reputation and good name. It is not necessary, In order
to recover general damages for words which are ac-
| Honable per se, that the plaintiff should have suffered
any actual or constructive pecuniary loss. Tn such ac-
tion, the plaintiff is entitled to recover as general dam-
ages for the injury to his feelings which the libel of
the defendant has caused and the mental anguish or
“In Webb v, Gray, supra [181 Ala. 408, 62-So. 19 dured as a consequence there-
this court made it clear that a different rule for : ‘ons enter into the awarding
[fol. 2248] ages is applicable in libel than in malicio © of damages by a jury in a libel case that the courts
prosecution cases and other ordinary tort cases. i t i of a verdict
this case the court stated in effect that in libel The question of
actual damages are presumed if the statement is damages for a tort especially in a case of libel or
belous per se and accordingly no actual damages slander is peculiarly within the province of the jury,
Seay and unless the damages are so unconscionable as to
impress the court with its injustice, and thereby to
gnduce the court to believe the jury were actuated by
wejudice, partiality, or corruption, it rarely inter-
res with the verdict.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)
* * * * * * o*
_“In Advertiser Co. v. Jones, supra, this Court eo
sidered in a libel case the claim that the damages wer
excessive and stated: ‘While the damages are large
this case we cannot say that they were excessive. The
was evidence from which the jury might infer mali
wv
[fol. 2250] In the present case the evidence shows
the advertisement in question was first written by a pr
fessional organizer of drives, and rewritten, or “revved
to make it more “appealing.” The Times in its own
had articles already published which would have dem
strated the falsity of the allegations in the advertisem:
Jpon demand by the Governor of Alabama, The Times pulg
lished a retraction of the advertisement insofar as t&
Governor of Alabama was concerned. Upon receipt of th
letter from the plaintiff demanding a retraction of the
legations in the advertisement, The Times had investi,
tions made by a staff correspondent, and by its “stri
correspondent. Both made a report demonstrating
falsity of the allegations. Hiven in the face of these report
The Times adamantly refused to right the wrong it Ime
it had done the plaintiff. In the trial below none of
defendants questioned the falsity of the allegations in
advertisement.
On the other hand, during his testimony it was the ¢
tention of the Secretary of The Times that the advertis
ment was “substantially correct.” In the face of this car
lier ignoring of the falsity of the advertisement, the jm
could not have but been impressed with the bad faith
The Times, and its maliciousness inferable therefrom.
While in the Johnson Publishing Co. case, supra,
damages were reduced by way of requiring a remittitu:
such reduction was on the basis that there was some
ment of truth in part of the alleged libelous statement.
such reason to mitigate the damages is present in this ca:
[fol. 2251] It is common knowledge that as of today
dollar is worth only 50 cents or less of its former value.
The Times retracted the advertisement as to Governsi
Patterson, but ignored this plaintiff’s demand for retraag 2 interpret the
tion. The matter contained in the advertisement was equa Bee, supra. This erroneous premise, as we interp
false as to both parties. : e :
The Times would not justify its nonretraction as to é ‘ve authority in our present consideration. 7
plaintiff by fallaciously asserting that the advertisem ie eral states, except where the
was substantially true, and further, that the advertisemer : ae ewe A eee of the United States or Acts
as presented to The Times bore the names of endorser Gone ul cx otherwise require or provide, shall be re-
whose reputation tor truthat considered good. 7 raed or rules of decision in civil actions in the courts
i S i they
2253] of the United States, in cases where
pee os 1652, Title 28, US.C.A., 62 Stat. 944.
he irresponsibility of these endorsers in attaching
names to this false and malicious advertisement can-
shield The Times from its irresponsibility in printing
advertisement and scattering it to the four winds.
jn all we do not feel justified in mitigating the dam-
awarded by the jury, and approved by the trial judge
iow, by its judgment on the motion for a new trial, with
favorable presumption which attends the correctness
the verdict of the jury where the trial judge refuses to
t a new trial. Housing Authority of City of Decatur
Decatur Land Co., 258 Ala. 607, 64 So. 24 594.
9252] In our considerations we have examined the
of New York Times Company v. Conner, (SCCA) 291
492 (1961), wherein the Cireuit Court of Appeals toy
fth Cireuit, relying exclusively upon Age H arid
ublishing Co. v. Huddleston, 207 Ala. 40, 92 So. 193, hel
no cause of action for libel arose in Alabama were
alleged libel appeared in a newspaper primarily pub-
ed in New York. _ .
5 ae overlooks, or ignores, the decision of this court
‘Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, QT1 Ala. 474, 124 So. 2d
wherein this court rejected the argument that the
le process of writing, editing, printing, transportation
distribution of a magazine should be regarded as one
and the locus of such libel was the place of primary
feation. This court further, with crystal clarity, held
Age Herald Publishing Co. v. Huddleston, supra, con-
ned a venue statute, and that venue statutes do not
ty to foreign corporations not qualified to do business
Liod
It is our conclusion that the judgment below is du 2 it appearing that said parties have waived their
be affirmed, and it is so ordered. of exemptions under the Jaws of Alabama, it was
Affirmed. that execution issue accordingly.
Livingston, OC. J., and Simpson and Merrill, JJ., conagigag 2 it was further Ordered and Adjudged that the other
: paliants, Ralph D. Abernathy, Fred L. Shuttlesworth,
‘Seay, Sr., and J. E. Lowery, be also taxed with the
of appeal of this Court and of the Circuit Court, for
costs let execution issue accordingly.
[£ol. 2254]
iy raz Supreme Court or Tae Srare or ALABAMA
The Court Met in Special Session Pursuant to Adjourn
Present: All the Justices
Monteomuny Crrcurr Court
8rd Div. 961
9255] [File endorsement omitted]
ran Supreme Covat or THE SraTs oF ALABAMA
Third Division No. 961 ~
Tur New Yorx Tues Company, a Corporation, cw Yorx Tamms Company, A Corporation, Appellant,
vs. vs.
L. B. Sutmivay. L. B. Sunzivay, Appellee.
Juvement—August 30, 1962
Come the parties by attorneys and the record and mat
therein assigned for errors being argued and submitted
motions and merits and duly examined and underst
by the Court, it is considered that in the record and pi
ceedings of the Circuit Court there is no error.
; 4 is Therefore Considered, Ordered and Adjudged the
the judgment of the Cireuit Court be in all things affirm
It is Further Considered, Ordered and Adjudged that
appellant, The New York Times Company, a Corporati
and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a
poration, surety on the supersedeas bond, pay the amo
of the judgment of the Circuit Court and ten per cent
(10%) damages thereon and interest and the costs of app
of this Court and of the Circuit Court.
Appeal From Montgomery Cireuit Court.
s FoR STay OF Exzcutios—Filed November 18, 1962
¢ Honorable Supreme Court of the State of Alabama:
nes now the Appellant, The New York Times Com-
a Corporation, and shows unto the Court as follows:
This cause came to this Court on appeal from the
it Court of Montgomery County from a judgment of
said court against this Appellant and others in the
isant of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00).
‘At the time of taking the appeal from the judgment
Gircuit Court of Montgomery County this Appellant
in said Circuit Court a supersedeas bond in the
mt of One Million Five Hundred Dollars ($1,000,-
), which bond was executed by this Appellant as
principal and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Com
as surety.
3. On, to-wit, the 30th day of August, 1962, this H
able Court rendered a judgment affirming the judgment:
the Cireuit Court of Montgomery County and renderi
judgment against this Appellant and the surety on its
in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars (¢
000.00), plus interest and ten percent (10%) penalty.
4, This Appellant will petition the Supreme Court of &
United States for review of the judgment of this Honoraliga
Court on writ of certiorari and desires a stay of execntiz
of the judgment of this Honorable Court and of the Cire
Court of Montgomery County pending the final determiz
tion of the review by the Supreme Court of the Unik
States.
5. Appellant has filed with the Clerk of this Hono:
Court a bond executed by Appellant as principal and §
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company as surety whe
by Appellant and surety are held and firmly bound um
[fol. 2256] L. B. Sullivan in the sum of Five Hundred The
sand Dollars ($500,000.00) plus ten percent (10%) per
thereon with interest, the cost of appeal in the Sup
Court of Alabama aud the Cireuit Court of Montgoi
County, and all damages and costs which L. B. Sulli
may sustain or has sustained by reason of the stay he
petitioned for pending the final determination of a petit
for certiorari to be filed in the United States Suprem
Court by Appellant.
Wherefore Premises Considered this Appellant pray
that this Honorable Court stay the execution of the jad
ment of this Honorable Court and the judgment of
Cireuit Court of Montgomery County until such time as #
Supreme Court of the United States denies this Appellan
petition for writ of certiorari or rules adversely to &
Appellant upon review of the judgment of this Honorak
Court on writ of certiorari, and until that said Court reg
ders a decision on any application for rehearing that
be filed as a result of its said action in connection with
petition for writ of certiorari or until the time allowed
. i iti i i i has expired
for filing a petition for writ of certiorari
ino petition for writ of certiorari has been filed.
y i Mac-
Beddow, Embry & Beddow, By Roderick M. 1
Leod, J r., Attorneys for Appellant, The New York
Times Company, a corporation.
Say or Execurios—November 13, 1962
ellant, TheNew York Times Company, a corporation,
filed in this Court a petition for a stay of the execu-
of the judgment rendered by this Court on August
in order that it may seek a review of the judgment
s Court in the Supreme Court of the United States
petition for writ of certiorari and the same having
@uly examined and understood by this Court and this
being of the opinion that the petition is due to be
itis hereby
d Adjudged that the judgment in this case
g — et thereby stayed until such time as the
reme Court of the United States denies this Appellant's
Bion for writ of certiorari or rules adversely to this
+ upon review of the judgment of this Court on
certiorari and until that said court renders a deci-
n any application for rehearing that may be filed as
Ht of its said action in connection with the petition
#¢ of certiorari or until the time allowed by law for
a petition for writ of certiorari has expired and no
a for writ of certiorari has been filed or until further
of this Court.
2257] Done and Ordered this 13 day of November,
J. Ed Livingston, C.J., Simpson, Merrill, Harwood,
JJ., concur.
as, the Supreme Court of Alabama on August 30th,
having affirmed a judgment of the Circuit Court in
igomery County and having rendered judgment on Aw
30th, 1962 against the said Principal and Surety in
amount of Five Huwprep Txousanp anp No/100
000.00) Donnars, plus ten per cent penalty, plus
+ and costs; and
as, Tae New York Tons Company, feeling ag-
ved and injured by the said judgment of the Supreme
of Alabama, is about to commence a proceeding In
Supreme Court of the United States of America for a
it of Certiorari to review the determination of the Su-
Court of Alabama.
vy, Tusrerorn, tHe Conprrion or Tuis OBiicaTion Is
that if the said Taz New Yors Tumzs Company shall
ate the said Writ to effect and satisfy any final judg-
t rendered against the said Tus New York Trmns Com-
and usual place of business in the Jackson Building, : Lex, in this action, as the United States Supreme Court
: b ~ render in the case, then the said obligation to be null
[fol. 2258]
is rus Supreme Court or rae Srave or ALABAMA
(Letterhead of St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance
Company, Saint Paul, Minnesota)
[Stamp—Filed—Nov 13 1962—Supreme Court of Alab
—J. Render Thomas—Clerk]
‘Warr or Cerriorari
Unrrep Srares Supreme Court
Kyow Aut Mun sy Tues Presents, that we, Tue }
York Tres Company, a corporation of the State of N
York, as Principal, and Sr. Paun Free anp Marne Ly:
unto L. B. Sunzivan in the sum of Five Hunprep Tov: -void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
and No/100 ($500,000.00) Dotnars plus ten per cent d: ; Times Company
ages thereon with interest, the costs of appeal in the Tar New York Tim
preme Court of Alabama and the Circuit Court for Mi 3 By /s/ Hazpuxe F, Bancrort
[Seal]
Sr. Paun Fine anp Marve Insurance Company
By /s/ V. J. Borziia
V. J. Boretts, Attorney-in-Fact
[Seal]
Sunzivan may sustain or has sustained by reason of the s
agreed to and/or granted herein pending the final de
mination of a petition for certiorari to be filed by Tun N
York Trwzs Company, for the payment of which well
truly to be made, we bind ourselves and each of us, ow
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and as:
jointly and severally firmly by these presents, and as p
of this undertaking we hereby waive all our rights une
the Constitution and laws of the State of Alabama, to ha fs/ J. B. Carman
any of our property, real or personal, exempt from k Resident Agent
and sale in satisfaction hereof. 2M Rev. 6/61
written notation—TViled and approved this the 13 day
ember 1962 J. Render Thomas Court Clerk of the
ne Court of Ala.]
Bond #431FH 6582
esigwep aT BramincHam, Ana.
Szarep Wrre Ovs Szans anp Daren this 24th day of S
tember, 1962.
“Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company; that he re-
in Brooklyn, New York, that he knows the corporate
of said Company; that the seal affixed to the foregoing
ment is such corporate seal; that it was affixed by him
f the Board of Direc-
[fol. 2258]
Corporation ACKNOWLEDGMENT
THE ST. PAUL
INSURANCE COMPANIES
(Emblem) : e authority as the voluntary act
Serving you around the world ... around the clock deed of said Company; that said Company has duly
: the requirements of Chapter No. 134 of
State of New York State of New Jersey of the year 1902 and
County of New Nene, 635 E amendments thereof and supplements thereto; that the
available assets of the Company exceed its liabilities,
On this ist day of October, 1962, before me person a ch liabilities are ascertained in the manner provided
came Harding F. Bancroft to me known, who being by
duly sworn, did depose and say; that he resided in N
York, N. Y. that he is the Secretary of The New York Ti
Company the corporation described in and which execu
the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said
poration; that the seal affixed to said instrument is
corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Bo: i.
of Directors of said corporation, and that he signed i i : 250,000.00) held as
name thereto by like order. 4
of Minnesota, and is authorized by the laws of that
te and under its charter to become surety on bonds and
tions such as are mentioned in said Chapter; that it
on deposit with the Treasurer of the State of Minnesota
/s/ Axna M. Jonson, Notary Pul 0); that said Company has
y commission expires E f Banking and Insurance of
Anna M. Johnson
Notary Public, State of N.Y.
No. 24-7091910
Qualified in Kings Co.
Cert. filed in New York Co.
Comm. expires March 30, 1964
Jersey
ttorney in the State of New Jersey upon whom process
wv can be served, and has filed in the office of the Com-
oner of Banking and Insurance a written instrument,
signed and sealed, certifying such appointment.
/s/ Guozce B, StosNz, Notary Public.
B. Sloane
-y Public, State of New York
24.9043670—Kings County
filed in New York County
a Expires March 30, 1964
fol. 2258b]
State of New York
County of New York, ss.:
On this 24th day of September A.D., 1962, before me,
subscriber, a notary public duly commissioned and swe
personally came V. J. Borelli who, being by me duly swo:
on his cath saith: that he is an Attorney-in-Fact of
Sec toed
[fol. 2258¢] THE §8T. PAUL £ Minnesota,
INSURANCE COMPANIES ty of Ramsey, ss
(Emblem) : . . .
Serving you around the world ... around the clock . E. King, Vice President of the St. Paul Fire and
me Insurance Company, being duly sworn, deposes
says that he is the above deseribed officer of said Com-
that said Company is a corporation duly organized,
g and engaging in business as a surety company
«and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota,
385 Wasuineton Sz., Sr. Paun 2, Minn.
Financial Statement June 30, 1962
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
ASSETS
Bonds
Stocks
Real Estate
Cash and Bank Deposits
Agents’ Balances
Due from Reinsurance Cos. and Notes
Equity in Assets of Associations
Due from St. Paul Mereury
Insurance Company
Accrued Interest
Other Assets
ny on the 30th day of June, 1962.
/s/ W. E. Kine
W. E. King, Vice President
ibed and sworn to before me
th day of August 1962
. P. Lear
. P. Leaf
ery Public, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Commission expires September 13, 1967.
LIABILITIES
Reserve for Unearned Premiums
Reserve for Unadjusted Losses
Reserve for Loss Adjustment Expenses
Reserve for Taxes and Expenses
Dividends Declared and Unpaid
Statutory Reserve Adjustments
Funds Held Under Reinsurance Treaties
Construction Loan
Other Liabilities
Special Reserve Fund
8a]
of New York,
fy of New York, ss.:
e 24th day of September in the year 1962, before
esonally came V. J. Borelli, to me known, who, being
daly sworn, did depose and say that he resides in
n, N. Y.; that he is the Attorney-in-Fact of the
Capital Stock 25,870,231.25
Voluntary Reserve 30,060,000.00 UL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COM-
Surplus 119,344,398.96 175,214, the corporation described in and which executed
: ve instrument; that he knows the seal of said cor-
410,254, Ben: that the seal affixed to said instrument is such
Doli . a seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board
Surplus to B olicyholdera $175,214,630.21 ors of said corporation, and that he signed his
Securities carried at $7,715,202.00 in the
foregoing statement are deposited as required
by law.
name thereto by like order; and the affiant did
depose and say that the Superintendent of Insuran
the State of New York, has, pursuant to Section 327 of
Insurance Law of the State of New York, issued to
PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMP. 4
his certificate of qualification, evidencing the qualifi
of said Company and its sufficiency under any law of
State of New York as surety and guarantor, and the
priety of accepting and approving it as such; and '@
such certificate has not been revoked. ,
Stuart H. Richardson, W. C. Richardson, Gladys
nder, Florence M. Boosman, Donald H. Rodimer,
rt Haslam, T. H. Caley, Alan J. Thompson and
orelli, individually of New York, New York its true
‘al attorney (s)-in-fact to execute, seal and deliver
on its behalf as surety, any and all bonds and
ings, recognizances, contracts of indemnity and
‘tings obligatory in the nature thereof, which are
y be allowed, required or permitted by law, statute,
ulation, contract or otherwise, and the execution
instrument(s) in pursuance of these presents, shall
gine wpon the said St. Paul Fire and Marine Insur-
ppany, as fully and amply, to all intents and pur-
if the same had been duly executed and acknowl-
jts regularly elected officers at its principal office.
ower of Attorney is executed, and may be certified
may be revoked, pursuant to and by authority of
V,;—Section 8, of the By-Laws adopted by the
Directors of the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insur-
pany at a meeting called and held on the 17th
Jannary, 1952, of which the following is a true
pi of said Section 8:
President or any Vice President, Resident Vice
dent, Secretary or Resident Secretary, shall have
‘power and authority
} To appoint Attorneys-in-fact, and to authorize
mi to execute on behalf of the Company, and attach
Seal of the Company thereto, bonds and undertak-
recognizances, contracts of indemnity and other
Hines obligatory in the nature thereof, and
To appoint Special Attorneys-in-fact, who are
authorized to certify to copies of any power-
orney issued in pursuance of this section and/or
f the By-Laws of the Company, and
To remove, at any time, any such Attorney-in-
or Special Attorney-in-fact and revoke the au-
given him.”
/s/ Georce B. Stoanz
Notary Public
George B. Sloane
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 24-9043670—Kings County
Cert. filed in New York County
Term Expires March 30, 1964
[fol. 2258e]
Class 1 (A Capital Stock Compa
CERTIFIED COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY;
Original on File at Home Office of Company.
See Certification.
FIDELITY AND SURETY
DEPARTMENT
ST. PAUL
FIRE and MARINE
Insurance Company
HOME OFFICE: ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Know All Men By These Presents: That the St. P;
Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a corporation org
ized and existing under the laws of the State of Minn sof
and having its principal office in the City of Saint P
Minnesota, does hereby constitute and appoint A. G. Pi
disse
ioe
In Testimony Whereof, the St. Paul Fire and Mag
Insurance Company has caused this instrument to
signed and its corporate seal to be affixed by its authon
officer, this 17th day of August A.D. 1962
CERTIFICATION
e undersigned, a Special Attorney-in-fact of the St.
ire and Marine Insurance Company, duly appointed
nt to and by authority of the By-Laws of said Com-
do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing
the Power of Attorney* and affidavit, and the copy
Section of the By-Laws of said Company as set
in said Power of Attorney, with the Originals On
The Home Office Of Said Company, and that the
are correct transcripts thereof, and of the whole
said originals, and that the said Power of Attorney
been revoked and is now in full force and effect.
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO.
/s/ W. E. Kaye
Vice President.
(Corporate Seal)
tate of Minnesota,
County of Ramsey, ss. ‘estimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
h day of September 1962.
On this 17th day of August 1962, before me came
individual who executed the preceding instrument, to:
personally known, and, being by me duly sworn, said
he is the therein described and authorized officer of
/s/ RB. A. Prrricka
BR. A. Petricka
Special Attorney-in-fact
ited as to character and amount.
said Company; that the said Corporate Seal and his
ture were duly affixed by order of the Board of Direg
of said Company. '
1] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript
in printing).
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my
and affixed my Official Seal, at the City of Saint
Minnesota, the day and year first above written.
Supreme Court or tHE Unirep Srates
js/ ©. L. Janene No. 606, October Term, 1962
Notary Public, Ramsey County,
My Commission Expires June 2,
New York Times Company, Petitioner,
(Notarial Seal) vs.
L. B. Sunzrvay
z AuLowine CEnrionarir—January 7, 1963
ition herein for a writ of certiorari to the Su-
of the State of Alabama is granted.
List
‘And it is further ordered that the duly certified co)
the transcript of the proceedings below which accomp
the petition shall be treated as though filed in respon
such writ.
[fol. 2261]
Supreme Court or tan Unrrep Srares
No. 609, October Term, 1962
Rates D. Aprrnaruy, et al., Petitioners,
vs. ‘
L. B. Sunzivan
Orpen Annowine Csrrioranr—January 7, 1963 |
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to th
preme Court of the State of Alabama is granted, ands
case is set for argument immediately following N
‘And it is further ordered that the duly ‘certified cong
the transcript of the proceedings below which accony
the petition shall be treated as though filed in respo:
such writ. (
‘Ala.
onsty Advertiser
Ly tae Cmcurr Court oF
Mowteomery County, ALaBaMa.
Ar Law.
Case No. 27416
don Meise
honts'
L. B. Sutarvan, Plaintiff,
vs.
Tur New Yorx Totes Company,
A Corporation, et als., Defendants.
EXHIBITS
woatgontty
athe
s Exuzrr 1
Yoo
Audited.
Checked
1
i
195
Plaintiff's gahibit A.
iE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, i962 /765
No. 666 37
YORK TIMES COMPANY, PETITIONER,
ws.
L. B. SULLIVAN.
No. 669 0
D. ABERNATHY, ET AL, PETITIONERS,
vs.
L. B. SULLIVAN.
it OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA
INDEX
VOLUME 4
Original Print
sxhibits—Continued
¢ York Times issue of February 28, 1956
“Business Suffers by Racial Dispute.
Merchanis Who Deal with Ne-
Whites are Hard Hit” by Wayne
Special to The New York Times, date-
itgomery, Alabama, February 27 ...... 780 1383
“Pass, Printers, New York, N. Y., May, 1963
-~ tenia
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
119—New York Times issue of February 27, 1956
article “Negro Pastors Press Bus Boycott by
Preaching Passive Resistance, ete.” by Wayne
Phillips, Special to The New York Times, date-
lined Montgomery, Alabama, February 26 __.
120—New York Times Magazine issue of Feb-
ruary 26, 1956 article “Tuscaloosa: A Tense
Drama Unfolds” by Wayne Phillips, datelined
T x Alabama
121—New York Times issue of February 25, 1956,
article “Folsom Proposes Bi-Racial Group To
Fight Tension, ete.” by Wayne Phillips, Spe-
cial to the New York Times, datelined Mont-
gomery, Alabama, February 24
122—New York Times issue of February 24, 1956
article “Negroes Pledge To Keep Boycott” by
Wayne Phillips, Special to the New York
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, Feb-
ruary 23
123—New York Times issue of February 23, 1956
article “Dean Is Critical of Miss Lucy’s Bid”
by Wayne Phillips, Special to the New York
Times, datelined Tuscaloosa, February 21 ___
124—New York Times issue of February 18, 1956
article “Tuscaloosa Gets a White Council” by
Wayne Phillips, Special to the New York
Times, datelined Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Febru-
ary 17
125—New York Times issue of February 17, 1956
article “Alabama U. Head Deeries Mob Rule”
by Wayne Phillips, Special to the New York
Times, datelined Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Febru-
ary 16
126—New York Times issue of February 16, 1956,
article “Student Beaten, 2 Negroes Jailed” by
Wayne Phillips, Special to the New York
Times, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, datelined Febru-
ary 15
hibits—Continued
York Times issue of February 14, 1956,
“Alabama U. To Make High Court Ap-
Wayne Phillips, Special to the New
nes, Birmingham, Ala., datelined Feb-
13
York Times issue of February 12, 1956,
“Miss Lucy’s Education: Segregation
2” by Wayne Phillips, Special to the
York Times, datelined Tuscaloosa, Ala-
February 11 -..
York Times issue of March 11, 1956,
*Tusealoosa Calm Now, But Tensions
” by Wayne Phillips, Special to the
Zerk Times, datelined Tuscaloosa, Ala-
arch 10 _ Soe seonsa ws
York Times issue of March 10, 1956,
“Miss Lucy Seeks Fall Admission” by
Phillips, Special to the New York
datelined Birmingham, Alabama, March
York Times article, “Student Exhorts
& Rally” by Wayne Phillips, Special to
York Times, datelined Birmingham,
“White Councils Split in Alabama” by
Phillips, Special to the New York
88 -@atelined Birmingham, Alabama, March
s York Times issue of March 4, 1956,
“Montgomery is Stage for A Tense
8” by Wayne Phillips, Special to the New
816 Himes, datelined Montgomery, Alabama,
York Times issue of March 4, 1956,
‘Alabama To Heed Courts on Taking
tadenis” by Wayne Phillips, Special to
York Times, datelined Tuscaloosa,
March 3
Original
822
827
837
843
845
850
in
Print
1422
1426
1431
1486
1440
1442
1444
1449
a ee
’s Exhibits—Continued
185—New York Times issue of March 2, 1956,
article “University Ousts Miss Lucy Because
of Her Charges” by Wayne Phillips, Special to
the New York Times, datelined Birmingham,
Alabama, March 1
136—New York Times issue of March 18, 1956
article “III. States Resisting Alabama” by Pe-
ter Kihss
137—New York Times issue of March 13, 1956
article “Alabama Expels Student in Riots” by
Wayne Phillips, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Tuscaloosa, Alabama, March
12 .
188—New York Times issue of March 18, 1956,
article “Report on The South: A Summary of
the New York Times Survey?
139—New York Times issue of March 1, 1956,
article “U.S. Judge Orders Alabama Co: Ed to
be Reinstated” by Wayne Phillips, Special to
the New York Times, datelined Birmingham,
Alabama, February 29
140—New York Times issue of February 29, 1956,
article “Folsom To Call Special Session” by
Wayne Phillips, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, Feb-
ruary 28
141—New York Times issue of February il, 1956
article “10,000 In Alabama Hail Segregation”
by Wayne Phillips, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, Feb-
ruary 10
142—New York Times issue of April 29, 1956
article “Students Weigh Solution on Bias” by
John N. Popham, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Talladega, Alabama, April 28
143—New York Times issue of April 27, 1956
article “Negroes To Keep Boyecotting Buses”
by John N. Popham, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, April
26
Original
854
861
865
879
883
893
s Exhibits—Continued
New York Times issue of April 26, 1956
ele “Bus Boycott Firm in Alabama City”
ohn N. Popham, Special to The New York
datelined Montgomery, Alabama, April
ew York Times issue of April 24, 1956
le “Conviction Spurs Negroes’ Boycott” by
ne Phillips, Special to The New York
es, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, March
ew York Times issue of March 23, 1956
le “Negro Minister Convicted of Directing
Boycott” by Wayne Phillips, Special to
New York Times, datelined Montgomery,
ema, March 22
lew York Times issue of December 24,
article “Shot Hits Home of Bus Bias Foe”
ew York Times issue of December 23, 1956
ie “White Dissidents Stir Bus Clashes” by
ge Barrett, Special to The New York
datelined Montgomery, Alabama, De-
er 22
ew York Times issue of December 22, 1956
“Bus Integration in Alabama Calm” by
Barrett, Special to The New York
datelined Montgomery, Alabama, De-
21
ew York Times issue of December 16, 1956
“Montgomery: Testing Ground” by
e Barrett, Montgomery, Alabama _.
few York Times issue of January. 10, 1959
ie “Defiant Judge Told To Yield Voter
by Claude Sitton, Special to The New
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama,
y9
Vv
Original Print
897
899
901
905
907
909
912
921
1493
1495
1497
1501
1503
1505
1508
1515
Plaintiff’s Exhibits—Continued
155—New York Times issue of December 10, 1958
article “Rights Unit Asks U.S. Writ for Ala-
bama Voting Data” by Claude Sitton, Special
to The New York Times, datelined Montgomery,
Alabama, Di ber 9
156—New York Times issue of December 9, 1958
article “Alabamans Defy U.S. Rights Board at
First Hearing” by Claude Sitton, Special to
The New York Times, datelined Montgomery,
Alabama, December 8 —. =
157—New York Times issue of June 27, 1957,
article “Expert Attacks Missile Secrecy” by
Russell Porter, Special to The New York Times,
datelined Huntsville, Alabama, June 26
158—New York Times issue of June 24, 1957,
article “Security Marks Nickerson Trial” by
Russell Porter, Special to The New York Times,
datelined Huntsville, Alabama, June 23
159—New York Times issue of March 8, 1957,
article “Jim Crow, He’s Real Tired” by George
Barrett
160—New York Times issue of January 18, 1957,
article “A Dynamite Bomb Found In Alabama”
by Phillip Benjamin, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, Janu-
ary 17
161—New York Times issue of January 1, 1957,
article “A Sniper Fires on 4th Alabama Bus”
by Clarence Dean, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, De-
cember 31
162—New York Times issue of January 12, 1957,
article “Violence Stops in Montgomery” by
Philip Benjamin, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Montgomery, Alabama, Janu-
ary ll
163—New York Times issue of December 28, 1956,
article “Birmingham Defiance Ends” by Clar-
ence Dean, Special to The New York Times,
datelined Birmingham, Alabama, December 27
inbix
Exhibits—Continued
lew York Times issue of January 14, 1959,
e “Alabama Jurors Offer Vote Files” by
nde Sitton, Special to The New York Times,
ined Clayton, Alabama, January 13
lew York Times issue of April 13, 1960,
e “Race Issue Shakes Alabama Structure”
‘Harrison E. Salisbury, Special to The New
stk Times, datelined Birmingham, Alabama,
8
New York Times issue of April 12, 1960,
ticle “Fear and Hatred Grip Birmingham”
‘Harrison E. Salisbury, Special to The New
Times, datelined Birmingham, Alabama,
8
923
927
934
New York Times issue of April 3, 1960,
ie “Clergy Exhorted To Help Negroes” by
E. Salisbury, Special to The New
938 Times, datelined Andalusia, Alabama,
2
‘ew York Times issue of March 7, 1960,
‘Negroes Dispersed In Alabama March”
de Sitton, Special to The New York
datelined, Montgomery, Alabama, March
939
lew York Times issue of March 2, 1960,
“1,000 Negroes Join March In Ala-
a” by Claude Sitton, Special to The New
Times, datelined, Montgomery, Alabama,
1
945
York Times issue of January 27, 1959,
‘U. S. Court Clears Alabama Judge in
Dispute” by Russell Porter, Special to
New York Times, datelined Montgomery,
ma, January 26 - a
w York Times issue of January 16, 1959,
“Alabama Judge Faces U.S. Action” by
e Sitton, Special to The New York Times,
ned Montgomery, Alabama, January 15
947
949
950
952
955
961
968
972
975
976
982
viL
Original Print
1546
1549
1562
1565
1568
1569
1573
Viis
Sat ee,
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
172—New York Times issue of January 15, 1959,
article “County in Alabama Yields Voting Files
on Its Own Terms” by Claude Sitton, Special
to The New York Times, datelined Union
Springs, Alabama, January 14 -
173—New York Times issue of January y 18, “1959,
article “U. S. Court Defied on Vote Records”
by Claude Sitton, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Clayton, Alabama, January 12
174—New York Times issue of January 19, 1958,
article “School Fight Opens in Deep South” by
John N. Popham, Special to The New York
Times, datelined Chattanooga, Tennessee, Janu-
ary 18
175—Article, “U.S. Negro Gains Held Scant in
°59” by Claude Sitton, Special to The New
York Times, datelined Atlanta, January 23 —
176—New York Times issue of January 20, ar-
ticle “Patterson Backs Separate Schools”, date-
lined Montgomery, Alabama, January 19 —_-
178—New York Times issue of July 7, 1959, ar-
ticle “Birmingham Resists Church Integration”
by John Wicklein —.
185—New York Times issue of February 22,
1957, article “Alabama U. Alumnus Urges Ban
on Co-Ed”, Special to The New York Times,
datelined, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, February 21
186—New York Times issue of February 1, 1956,
article “Negro Student Admitted”, Special to
The New York Times, datelined Birmingham,
Alabama, January 31
187—New York Times issue of January 8, 1956,
article “Negroes’ Boycott Cripples Bus Line”,
Special to The New York Times, datelined
Montgomery, Alabama, January 7 ——__—
188—New York Times issue of February 26,
1956, article “Lucy Case Splits Alabama
Unions”, Special to The New York Times, date-
lined Tuscaloosa, Alabama, February 25
984
989
993
1010
1012
1013
INDEX
Exhibits—Continued
ew York Times issue of January 29, 1956,
“Democrats Curb Alabama Bolters”,
d Montgomery, Alabama, January 28 _
York Times issue of January 8, 1956,
“Phenix City Honored”, datelined,
ix City, Alabama, January 7
w York Times issue of January 24, 1956,
“Legislative Revolt In Alabama Set-
Special to The New York Times, date-
& Montgomery, Alabama, January 23 _
w York Times issue of January 24, 1956,
“Bid to End Boycott Unheeded”, Spe-
to The New York Times, datelined Mont-
, Alabama, January 23 .
. York Times issue of March L 1956,
e “Federal Bus Trials Sought”, Special
e New York Times, datelined Birming-
Alabama, February 29
y York Times issue of March 21, 1956,
‘Battle Against Tradition”, Special to
few York Times, datelined Montgomery,
8, March 20 -
York Times i issue of March 2 , 1956,
e “Montgomery Negroes Tell Court of
" by City’s Bus Drivers” by Wayne Phil-
Special to The New York Times, date-
Montgomery, Alabama, March 21
York Times issue of April 24, "1956,
“Army Seeks Ordnance Aides”, Special
New York Times, datelined Huntsville,
a, April 23 a
York Times issue me of April 25, 1956,
“Boycott Continues,” Special 6 The
‘Fork Times, datelined Montgomery, Ala-
April 24 __.
y York Times j issue of October “4, 1956,
“Court Holds Key To Bus Boycott”,
to the New York Times, datelined
nery, Alabama, October 13 2
Original
1016
1018
1018
1019
1020
1024
1026
1026
1027
1607
1608
1609
1610
1610
1611
1615
1616
1617
1618
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
199—New York Times issue of December 21,
1956, article “Negroes To Test Bus Ruling
Today”
200—New York Times issue of December 7, 1956,
article “Negroes Mark Boycott”, Special to The
New York Times, datelined Montgomery, Ala-
bama, December 6
20i—New York Times
1956, article “Negro
Bus”
202—New York Times issue of December 29,
1956, article “Negro Wounded on Alabama
Bus”, Special to The New York Times, date-
lined M -y, Alabama, December 28
203—New York Times issue of December 30,
1956, article “Montgomery Sets a Night Bus
Ban”
204—New York Times issue of December 30,
1956, article “Montgomery Bars Bus Runs At
Night”, Special to The New York Times, date-
lined M , Alabama, December 29 _.
205—New York Times issue of December 31,
1956, article “Racial Violence Found Declin-
ing”, datelined Tuskegee, Alabama, December
30
206—New York Times issue of January 3,, 1957,
article “Montgomery Buses Kept Under Cur-
few”, Special to The New York Times, date-
lined Montgomery, Alabama, January 2 ~
207—New York Times issue of January 14, 1957,
article “Nonviolence Stressed”, Special to The
New York Times, datelined Montgomery, Ala-
bama, January 13 —
issue of December 29,
Wounded In Alabama
208—New York Times issue of January 16, 1957,
article “Bus Service Resumed”, Special to The
New York Times, datelined Montgomery, Ala-
bama, January 15
1029
1031
1031
1083
1034
1035
1036
1038
1038
INDEX
’s Exhibits—Continued
"New York Times issue of January 17, 1957,
ticle “Montgomery Busses Resume Day Serv-
*, Special to The New York Times, datelined
migomery, Alabama, January 16
New York Times issue of January 26, 1957,
le “Suit Asks Ban on Bias”, Special to
New York Times, datelined Birmingham,
a, January 25 —~
New York Times issue of February 22,
7, article “Negroes Win Bus Test”, Special
@ The New York Times, datelined Birming-
gn, Alabama, February 21
ew York Times issue of March 3, 1957,
wéiele “Shipbuilders Sign Wage Post”, Special
The New York Times, datelined Mobile,
few York Times issue of March 17, 1957,
e “New Voter Board Wary In Alabama”,
to The New York Times, datelined No-
Alabama, March 16 ___. at
‘ew York Times issue of March 17, 1957,
“Dr. Seale Harris, Physician, Is Dead”,
to The New York Times, datelined
ngham, Alabama, March 16 -
lew York Times issue of December 19,
}, article “Voting In Alabama Marked By
iy”, Special to The New York Times,
“Beef Cattle Up In Alabama”, Special
‘The New York Times, datelined Mont-
ew York Times issue of May 16, 1957,
“Teacher At Auburn Ousted In Bias
, Special to The New York Times, date-
“auburn, Alabama, May 14 _. a
New York Times issue of Tuly 7 7, 1957, ar-
“Negroes Stopping Alabama Boycott”,
to The New York Times, datelined
e, Alabama, July 6
Original
1039
1040
1041
1041
1042
1044
1045
1046
1046
Print
1630
1631
1632
1682
1633
1635
1636
1637
1637
1638
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
219—New York Times issue of September 6, 1957,
article “College Head Named”, Special to The
New York Times, datelined Montgomery, Ala-
bama, Sep 5
220—New York Times issue of June 4, 1958,
article “Patterson Gains Alabama Victory”,
Special to The New York Times, datelined
Birmingham, Alabama, June 3
221—New York Times issue of July 24, 1959,
article “Budgets ‘Hedged’”, Special to The
New York Times, datelined Birmingham, Ala-
pama, July 23 en
222—New York Times issue of November 14,
1958, article “Rogers Orders U. S. Jury to
Study Arrest of 3” _
223—New York Times issue of December 7, 1958,
article “Bus Boyeott Gain Seen By Negroes”,
Special to The New York Times, datelined
Montgomery, Alabama, December 6 —_______
224New York Times issue of December 7, 1958,
article “Civil Rights Unit To Open Hearing”,
Special to The New York Times, datelined
Montgomery, Alabama, December 6 ——-_____.
225—New York Times issue of February 7, 1959,
artide “U.S. Alabama Suit Asks Negro Vote”
226—-New York Times issue of February 7, 1959,
article “U.S. Alabama Suit Asks Negro Vot-
ing”, Special to The New York Times, date-
lined Montgomery, Alabama, February 6 -
227—New York Times issue of February 21, 1959,
article “Alabama Session Ends”, Special to The
New York Times, datelined Montgomery, Ala-
bama, February 20 _
228—New York Times i issue of March 8, 1959,
article “Alabama School Trains The Elite”,
Special to The New York Time:
Helena, Alabama, March 7
datelined
INDEX
$ Exhibits—Continued
ew York Times issue of March 8, 1960,
“Further Protests Forecast”, Special to
New York Times, datelined Montgomery,
a, March 7 ———_________..
ew York Times issue of September 13,
article “Birmingham Quiet as Tension
, Special to The New York Times, date-
h Alabama, September 12
York Times issue of July 3, 1956,
oycott Ending 7th Month”, Special
New York Times, datelined Mont-
y, Alabama, July 2
Sew York Times issue of April 10, “19 i
50, article “Alabama Forming Race-Riot
3”, Special to The New York Times, date-
‘April 9, 1960 ____________.
York Times issue of January 11, 1957,
“Other Banks”, Special to The New
Times, datelined January 10 -
* York Times issue of January 12, 1956,
“Birmingham”, Special to The New
Fines; datelined Birmingham, Alabama,
1050
1054
1055
1058
Expense Statements for Frank M. Mon-
1060 nd Thomas M. Hurley for weeks ending
8, 1960, December 4, 1959, October 31,
and August 21, 1959 _.
—Letters from Haward Gs Kennedy to
1060 City of Montgomery, dated January 22,
a. duly 14, 1960 +... =
reporter’s note —.. sat
ial Advertising Rotogravure section of
1063 York Times newspaper, dated February 2,
@esignated as “The Alabama Supple-
Original
1063
1064
1065
1065
1068
1069
1069
1089
1093
1095
1095
Xu
Print
1655
1657
1657
1660
1660
1661
1683
1687
1689
1689
auy
Plaintiff's Exhibits—Continued
Reporter’s and clerks’ certificates (omitted in
printing) Es
273—C. d
274—Letter from Joseph B. Wagner to Ralph
Silver, dated September 9, 1957 describing gen-
erally the terms and conditions for payment to
advertising agency, Silver & Douce Company,
Ine.
275—Advertisement entitled, “Heed Their Ris-
ing Voices” published in The New York Times
jssue of March 29, 1960, page 25 _..
276—Statement of New York Times for Insti-
tute Newsstand, Tuskegee, Alabama showing
charges for number of papers delivered and
all , 1960
277—New York Times credit memorandums for
Carter News Agency in Mobile, Alabama show-
ing number of papers sold and returned for
various dates in 1960
278—New York Times credit memorandums for
Stahbehi’s News Agency, Selma, Alabama
showing number of papers sold and returned
for various dates in 1960
279—New York Times credit memorandums for
Jefferson News Co., Birmingham, Alabama,
showing number of papers sold and returned
for various dates in 1960 -
280—New York Times orders and eredit a memo-
randums for M ‘y News Co.,
ery, Alabama showing number of papers sold
and returned for various dates in 1960
281—New York Times orders and credit memo-
randums for Anderson News Co., Florence,
Alabama showing number of papers sold and
returned for various dates in 1960 -.
282—New York Times orders and credit smmemo-
randums for Lewis Drug & Seed Store, Tuske-
gee, Alabama showing number of papers sold
and returned for various dates in 1959 ~
Exhibits—Continued
ew York Times orders and credit memo-
for A. G. Bridges, Tuscaloosa, Ala-
for various dates in 1960
York Times credits and charges for
News Co., Dothan, Alabama showing
er of papers sold and returned for first
1160
le Drug Co., Alexander City, Ala. show-
amber of papers sold and returned for
1163
York Times credits and charges for
's Pharmacy, Ozark, Ala. showing num-
f papers sold and returned for first half
1168
York Times credits and charges for
e Bros., Greenville, Ala. showing num-
papers sold and returned for first half
York Times credits and charges for
Book Shop, Tuscaloosa, Ala. showing
of papers sold and returned for first
1960
York Times credits and charges for
iews & Tobacco Shop, Talladega, Ala.
number of papers sold and returned
half of 1960 _
ew York Times credits and charges for
Drug & Seed Store, Tuskegee, Ala.
number of papers sold and returned
half of 1960 .
York Times credits and. rehaeges for
News Co., Bessemer, Ala. showing num-
papers sold and returned for first half
1178
117g
1196
1201
York Times eredits and charges for
News Co., Gadsden, Ala. showing
of papers sold and returned for vari-
1211 in 1959 __
Original
1215
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1224
xv
1798
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
AUN be
Plaintif’s Exhibits—Continued
293—New York Times credits and charges for
Carlisle Drug Co., Alexander City, Ala., show-
ing number of papers sold and returned for
1959
294New York Times credits and charges for
Carter’s News Agency, Mobile, Alabama,
showing number of papers sold and returned
for 1959
295—New York Times eredits and charges for
Jefferson News Co., Birmingham, Ala. showing
number of papers sold and returned for 1959 _
296—New York Times credits and charges for
Gadsden News Co., E. Gadsden, Ala. showing
number of papers sold and returned for first
half of 1960
297—New York Times credits and charges for
Anderson News, Florence, Ala. showing num-
ber of papers sold and returned for 1960 —_._.
298—New York Times credits and charges for
Montgomery News Co., Montgomery, Ala.
showing number of papers sold and returned
for 1960
299—New York Times eredits and charges for
Lurie News Co., Dothan, Ala. showing number
of papers sold and returned for 1959
300—New York Times credits and charges for
Tuskegee Institute, Institute N.S., Ala. showing
number of papers sold and returned for 1959 _
301—New York Times credits and charges for
A. G. Bridges, Tuscaloosa, Ala. showing num-
ber of papers sold and returned ..
302—New York Times credits and charges for
Lastig Book Shop, Tuscaloosa, Ala. showing
number of papers sold and returned for 1959 _
303—New York Times credits and charges for
City News & Tobacco Shop, Talladega, Ala.
showing number of papers sold and returned
for 1959
Original
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1283
1234
1285
1236
1237
*s Exhibits—Continued
New York Times credits and charges for
hbehl’s News Agency, Selma, Ala. showing
mumber of papers sold and returned for 1959 —
New York Times credits and charges for
ywn’s Pharmacy, Ozark, Ala. showing num-
er of papers sold and returned for 1959
New York Times credits and charges for
xwell AFB, Intelligence & Bibliography
ch, Maxwell AFB, Ala. for 1959
New York Times credits and charges show-
number of papers sold and returned
}—New York Times credits and charges for
Srammage Bros., Greenville, Ala. showing
mber of papers sold and returned for 1959 —
New York Times credits and charges for
dio News Co., Bessemer, Ala. showing num-
of papers sold and returned for 1959 __
New York Times brochure pertaining to
New York Times Index __..
Original
1244.
1245
1821
1822
1823
1825
1826
1827
1828
Deparement Manag!
Advertising Direc
Audited
Lbvsr
093]
Cmourr Court or Montcomery County, ALabama
Puamtirr’s Exurerr No. 270
er, The New York Times, to Mayor Earl D. James,
mery, Alabama, signed Edward T. Kennedy, dated
ry 22, 1960, offered in evidence but disallowed and
ded by the Court and offered for a showing and iden-
as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 270.)
THE NEW YORK TIMES
TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK 31, N. ¥.
LAckawanna 41000
January 22, 1960
are pleased to send you the requested copy of the
“Area Development Promotion for Progress and
sperity,” and we trust you will find it both interesting
useful.
material has been kept brief to save your time,
made complete enough to supply the information we
ve you will want and need.
Since each city, county, state and region that wishes
stimulate industrial growth probably faces individual
sblems as well as possibilities, this book may leave some
tions still unanswered. In that case we can be of
er service to you.
lease call on us for any additional information you
ay require, or any other assistance we can give. There’s
obligation.
: Sincerely,
/s/ Epwarp T. Kenyepy
Manager
Area Development Advertising
dT. Kennedy :b
1689
[fol. 1094]
promotion which you will find both interesting and
Ds Crmcurr Courr or Moyreommry County, Ans i
ative.
i tunity for our
would very much appreciate an oppor’ ;
sentative to call on you at your convenience to bree
this material, to discuss the specific possibilities 0!
1095] your area and to supply any further informa-
Prawtier’s Exurprr No. 271
THE NEW YORK TIMES
TIMES SQUARE, NEW YORK 36 LA 416
FIRST IN ADVERTISING IN THE WORLD’
FIRST MARKET e shall look forward to hearing from you soon.
M 5
Sincerely,
daly /s/ Epwarp T. Kenwepy
Hon. Earle D. J: ames, Mayor Manager a
City of Montgomery Area Development Advertising
Alabama, ard T. Kennedy :b
Dear Mayor James:
Pranvtirr’s Exurert No. 272
Some time ago you wrote for information about a
ing industry to your city, county, state or region. Ws
pleased to send you a copy of the book, “Area
ment Promotion for Progress and Prosperity.”
intiff’s Exhibit No. 272, being a Book Bro-
wea hee Development Promotion for Erogress
Prosperity, The New York Times,” offered ea “i
wed in evidence for a showing only, is uncouiahe a
be attached to this record as a part thereof and certi-
d to by the Clerk of the Cireuit Court.
/s/ Waurer E. Grawan
Walter E. Graham,
Court Reporter.
This book probably confirmed your own
(1) industrial growth is a rich asset to the whole
munity, (2) good locations are always in demand by
facturers and (3) area development is perfectly
for a community that has some advantages to offer,
The book also showed numerous examples of e
advertising in The New York Times—the nation’s
area development medium. Those and similar adve
used more than 1,200 columns of space in The Time
year.
Crcurr Court or Monteomery County, ALABAMA
Pusutive’s Exurarr No. 273
In your organization, either individually or ‘as pe
@ group, is considering a program to stimulate indy
growth for your area, perhaps we can be of furthe:
vice.
K T
ALABAMA STATE DOCKS AT THE POR
OF MOBILE...
30-YEAR OLD GIANT THAT KEEPS GROWING!
PORT OF MOBILE—Shipping Success Story!
© seaport in the country in the past thirty years has
loped so fast, so far and so successfully . . . Be
ng to Knox McRae, director of Alabama State Docks.
Exactly who are your best prospects for new in
Where can they be found? How can they be reached
tively and economically? These and other questiong @
answered in a brand new guide to successful area dey.
fr general cargo berths that will i JOY AN ALABAMA VACATION WHILE SEEING
Teh Most eae, te twenty-seven. The ‘bulk ALABAMA’S INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
panded by 30. Dernent ‘ are Docks’ ore tipple will . m the Gulf of Mexico to the Tennessee River Valley,
Mobile is an old histo ee (stil moving ahead”: ama is a great Vacation Land. Tourists and vaca-
qin! discovery of hon a mn years es like Aen Bncommercialized otiractions, So
Alvarez de P} 3 “ Tica, the Spanish . ine pleasure wi! usiness—plan to stay a week or
Mobile. Monee dropped anchor at the present and enjoy a relaxing, exhilarating vacation when you
farers to explore ie Gare excellent shelter to these e to investigate the advantages of establishing your
charted the coastal Waters wow i ree ae 1519 that be $ heres t re Had
In 1702 Pierre . und Mobile. abama’s vacation attractions include:
area of the ‘Gulf Cone Sieur d’Iberville, claimed 4 Fish in the Gulf, for salt-water king mackerel, tarpon,
capital city—-Mobile for the French and nam _ paves , oat ast ws ok eis
arf swimming, boating, and silver sands 0: U1
During the rei =:
a gn of King Cott fob;
and prosperous 5. 78 Cotton, Mobile was a i
hauled is é bales orice er packet boats and sternwh Exotic flowers, Azaleas, camellias everywhere. Visit
going vessels carried 4) t on down the rivers where 4 ingrath Gardens, Mobile. .
ut it was just in the ie @ the looms on the Contin ‘resh water fishing in lakes and rivers, for bass, bream,
one of the top ten ports for the Unite that Mobile ae te “White H ” Mont,
ontederate ite Fiouse, ontgomery.
reat Vulcan Statue atop Birmingham’s Red Mountain.
1.1098] Indian mounds and relics, Moundville.
Ante-bellum homes, open to visitors.
Avo Maria Grotto, Cullman, world famous minature of
ly Land, Rome and famous shrines.
ittle River Canyon, Fort Payne, deep 25-mile gorge.
— Cathederal Caverns, Guntersville.
The Dismals, prehistoric gardens, Russellville.
TBA dams, great lakes, blue mountain scenic drives in
orth Alabama.
Mount Cheaha, Talladega, and 8 other State Parks.
Natural Bridge, near Halyville.
James E. Folsom, Governor
serving the import-export needs of world trad
‘ ‘ ers.
FACILITIES OF THE ALABAMA STATE :
Heavy Lift Equipment ”
pote Grain Elevator
erminal Switching Railway
Shipside Cold Bistiee Pe
ne Compress and Warehouse
oe 7, Actes of Fireproof Shipside Transit
Tminal and Bulk-Materia] Facilities, -
[fol. 1097]
(Photographs and Map Attached to Original.)
TEDETAILS: For additional information address
letter or postcard to Geoggrey Birt,
Director Publicity Bureau, State Cap-
itol, Montgomery, Ala.
(Several Photographs Attached to Original.)
ae Mier ee:
[£ol. 1099]
ALABAMA ny jonal, clerical, sales and service occup ational classifica-
P ENT > 2
uM AL EMPLOYMED AND LABOR
: t bh
ition to these actively secking work throug
Smployment Service, a large number of ted "This
(TWO MAPS ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL: available for work if job oe eee ene force,
(fol. 1100] Non-Agricultural employment in up includes women ee el in agri
totaled 740,000 in August, 1957, a 76% gain over th pe). L101] and many ae work
World War II figure. In 1940 manufacturing § - ties and in part-time 7
ployed an average of 145,800 persons. At p:
figure is about 248,000, reflecting a diversified
expansion. While most manufacturing industrieg
shown some increase over the years, the food, ap
paper and allied products, fabricated metal, and m
groups stand out particularly in the gains mad
World War II. Contrary to the general trend, the " in,
and lumber industries have declined in employment a¢ most semi-skilled jobs, with ie Cee ed and
the past several years. Even so, employment i: Raaptable to skilled training. Only She are in most
groups has exceeded the levels prior to World Wi nical workers are in short supply, as they
Native Ability
ly is unskilled, past
i ood part of the labor supply
ine anal aptitude testing by the State age
rvice has shown it to have a high degree of nativ
Metal Industry
The primary metals industry has become Al,
leading industry as gauged by employment and pay
The textile industry long the State’s largest in
employer, has fallen to second place with respect te
ber of workers, as well as payroll. Lumber and 3%
products firms have remained in third place in size of
force but have recently been exceeded in volume of
paid by the transportation equipment industry.
leading industries in rank order of employment are ESTATE OF ALABAMA
apparel; (5) transportation equipment; (6) foods OVERNOR’S OFFICE
fabricated metals; o Pane and allied produe! MONTGOMERY
paper and allied products; and (10) machinery. BAL
Income from agriculture declined from over fi (ALABAMA SEAL)
per cent to the total personal income prior to and folle JSTRY
World War Ui to under seven per cent in 1956. 0 es FRIENDS IN INDU
reetings :
Alabama has an ample supply of labor, both
Alabama offers you a golden opportunity to establish
female. More than 37,000 persons have applicatie
work on file with State Employment Service offices ;
+ business in the heart of the rapidly growing economy
¢ the Southeast.
n the type of industry. Wage scales on a broad occu-
etonal pasis range as follows: sea_att0 ¢
; i-skille ‘ 0
i 1.50 to $3.50 an hour; Semi-s $
eee Unskilled—$1.00 to $2.00 an hour.
AT ALABAMA
SEE FOR YOURSELF WH.
OME AND IS REALLY LIKE—
Alabama Department of Industrial Relations. Of #9
11% are skilled workers; 24%, semi-skilled; and
are classified as unskilled. The remainder are in
1695
@abama industrial resources. Space limitations permit
y mention of others, for example—
oi. 2 a : labama is the nation’s leading producer of cast iron
data nasties fone P : sure pipe and soil pipe, has one of the fastest growing
S with a marke eeccraft industries, 3 cross country natural gas lines reach-
s almost every section of the State, has abundant coal
“oply, blast furnace slag, limestone and dolomite, marble,
@dustrial water. Alabama’s foundry industries produce a
ititude of different products.
labama’s raw material production has increased from
1103] $42 million in 1939 to $120 million in 1955.
acessing production (construction and manufacturing)
creased from $624 million in 1939 to $3,751 million in
. In the same period, annual utilities production has
reased from $80 million to $473 million, annual finance
duction from $43 million to $378 million, annual dis-
mative trade from $962 million to $5,095 million—all
erprise in the State from $1,934 million annually to
425 million, approximately 500%.!
= Alabama has 10 State supported colleges. The total
(fol. 1102] We are glad re i
continue to come to Alabama ii plon ome aa
tries are expanding, M
trafiie—foreign trad
and farms—all are part of today’
industrial progress and prosperity.
Come and joi
‘Alabamat join us. Alabama needs you and you:
Sincerely,
James E. Folsom
James E. Folsom
Governor penditure for public elementary schools increased from
_— million in 1946-47 to $117 million in 1955-56. Total
’ ollment in 1956-57 in public elementary schools was
ALABAMA FORGES AHBAD IN INDUSTR $58,995 white and 256,180 Negro students.
DEVELOPMENT Alabama has one of the most modern highway systems,
sisting of 22,700 miles of paved roads, with 2,225 miles
ef new highway construction now planned. New highway
astruction in 1955-56 cost $55 million and in 11 months
1956-57 cost $61 million. There are 281 intrastate and
interstate commercial truck lines operating as com-
n carriers, 845,615 tracks. Total increase in registra-
on of motor vehicles in 1957 over fiscal year 1956 was
Jo.
December 31, 1956, there were 29 railroads operating in
ama, having 7,749 miles of track and an investment
Alabama of over $491 million.
Tn the period 1950-56, home ownership increased in
abama by 47.3%, average family income increased 47%,
d sales increased 37.2%.
Three years ago, Governor Ji
y S . ernor James E. F.
Alabama Legislature to create the State Qe ni
Industrial Development Board t i rattle
sidering locating in Alabama. Alabama’
taxes). Birmingham’s famous Committee of 100 and
ées throughout the
ommerce organizati i Fs
velopment departments ie te ae active
Alabama Power Company, have ail put thei a
to the wheel with the same purpose. _
The result has been an industrial expansi in A
that is spectacular. On other pages of this sect
factual stories about different Alabama inate
Alabama’s unifo
a’s rm temperature cli i
- rm climat
user working conditions, building costs at 1986
strial operations more efficient, me ower
Affecting the overall industri
ASPHALTIC SANDSTONE AND LIMESTONE—pres-
ly being mined as natural paving material. Large re-
es of this material.
BARITE—many small deposits of low-grade ore avail-
es! i F -
earch in the interest PRAUXITE—large deposits of this rock, some being
ed, for refractories, chemicals and abrasives.
ITUMINOUS COAL—large reserves of coal for fuel
chemicals. Future underground gastifications may use
ny thin seams not economical at this time.
ILDING STONE—world famous oolitic limestone and
rble. Only a small fraction of what is available is being
pnarried.
: the value of a i is
operauy individuals wh ace
nile, judtaduals “who are Sage to. pee ee
capa z we fegmaing, Such are native. Alabamane,
tfol. 1 ama is on ildin :
dustrial empire. Read ‘the aca ae
see for yourself.
cooperative people,
AND SHALE—large deposits of various clay
nerals suitable for making brick, cement, refractories,
Aiweight, aggregate and fullers earth.
GRAPHITE—flake and amorphous—major reserves in
ited States. No mining since World War II.
RON ORE—hematite and limonite—the major industry
following pages, then com
ALABAMA MINERALS MAKE ALABAMA @
For many years Al
i Ss Alabama has i
ore coal, limestone and dolomite pe ae cinor
ie ae i ea molding sands, marble, con and
: “products of the iron and steel i ’
= qpehthalane, light oils, coke oven te, pros
Len Fania open hearth slags serve to ‘cons
: ‘ ph
vee ion upon which the Alabama indus
For tt
Maa pest aitteen years the Geological S
oe fe he cooperation of the Ground Wa
pornos ater Branches of the U. S. Geologi Se
Sag en ed in detail the quality and quay mae
bie en ee Sindy has demonstrated
pl round water availabl ici
gia industrial use. An adequate, “jn. ipermnye.
1¢ first essential to industrial deve se
hoe evelopment.
The followin, i
. ne § mineral
i mining in ae Saic resources
ESTOS—the amphi i Vi
mentation with this be, CEREE a egy atlg
AND DOLOMITE—major industry—
ly one-third the surface area of Alabama is underlain
limestone and dolomite, some high grade. Dolomite
Syill soon be used to produce metallic magnesium.
| MICA—the mineral muscovite presently being mined as
rap grade. Many unexploited mica deposits. Some sheet
ca.
OIL AND GAS—four oil fields developed in last thirteen
ars. Promise of new fields being discovered. Numerous
mall gas fields should be developed in the near future.
SALT—one large salt dome close to the surface in the
s for an alkali-chlorine industry. Other salt deposits
own.
SILICA—some high grade quartz sand and gravel, sand-
fol. 1106] stone and quartzite.
TALC—small deposit presently being mined.
| (ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
play the greatest
4vuv0
COME TO SELMA AND DALLAS COUNTY
in the heart of Alabama
ima and Dallas County welcome industry, and indus-
syelcomes the many unique advantages they offer:
jocation on an important inland waterway, the Ala-
ma River.
abundance of natural resources.
1108] —a readily available pool of adaptable, quick-to-
Bearn labor. (Just ask some of our industries!)
community that actively seeks new industry and that
i actively help new industry to locate successfully.
warm, rich life in a community with unexcelled facil-
Pies for working, living and recreation.
ior more about Selma and Dallas County:
HAMBER OF COMMERCE
MA, ALABAMA
(SMALL MAP ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
MAKING “SNOW” IN ALABAMA
snow down in South Alabama. Snow-
from Gulf States Paper’s new mill
dustries throughout the
BESSEMER SUMS IT UP
Small City Atmosphere
Metropolitan Advantages
psoallent Location
New industries make friends ily i
easil:
32.00) 5 because here people cooperate np: ae
8 oe pride in new plants. “ne
Nearness to Birmingham (18 mil
: les by 41
vermin wee atords metropolitan ianteget
tation, medical, cultural, i :
‘Address inquiries tor
BESSEMER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
101, ¢
BESSEMER, ALABAMA
ALABAMA HAS JUST WH.
AT YOU WANT z
INDUSTRIAL SITE! ANE FO
This site near Athens in Li
hens in Limestone C i
of the many attractions for industrial Tocati wis
us L « eres Alabama. alles
‘ol. 1107] Alabama offers th
L e excellent combinati
noes, ; ie ra eras, abundant water, ieee :
a at ies, expan ing consumer
tive labor and sy Jeri spain ia ee
superior transportation servi
Our Industrial Development Department il
‘They're making
ite pulp is flowing
Demopolis to the paper in
ted States and abroad.
‘A pioneer in the Southern pap
per has expanded its three generations of paper-making
study your plant site probl into the ducti £ top-quality bleached pul
P 8 e a production of top-qua ‘ity bleached pulp
submit a confidential anatyais | for se “eathout obi table for making the finest papers. The most advanced
Contact the L & N’s your consideratios aipment and skilled personnel turn out glistening pulp
Industrial Development Offices ich rates 88 on the GE Brightness Test.
at Louisville (Phone JUniper 7-1121) The whitest, brightest paper will be made f
or Birmingham (Phone ALpine 1-5211). tes Paper’s E-Z PULP!
T 7 -
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD GULE Oe oration ani
ers of “Quality Counts E-Z Opener, Grocery Bags and
Z Pulp” Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
er industry, Gulf States
rom Gulf
(TWO MAPS ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL}
9)
(One Photograph Attached to Original.)
aN
INDUSTRY’S USE OF TV IN ALABAMA
dustry in Alabama finds a cooperative media for in-
tion to its personnel and to the public, in the nation’s
State owned and operated television network. Its
sts are viewed by 85% of the State’s TV sets over
annels 2, 7 and 10 from studios on campuses of (and
rated by) Alabama Polytechnic Institute and the Uni-
sity of Alabama, and another in Birmingham by J effer-
County Publie School systems.
ornings and afternoon offer in-school direct and sup-
mental teaching courses with accent on junior and senior
h math and sciences in an attempt to bring new interest
studies of young adults in these subjects in order to
in them for industry’s increasing demand for personnel
th technical backgrounds and skills. Industrial leaders
representatives appear on in-school telecasts to explain
ww a subject being taught is related to their profession,
dwhere students can secure details in what to “special-
” to enter specific jobs in area firms (317 white and negro
h and over 200 junior high schools are utilizing these
school tele-courses. )
Evening programming is geared to family cultural, civic,
d adult courses.
‘One of the network’s more successful series, “A.B.C.’s of
1.1111] Investment,” presented in cooperation with the
abama Securities Association, explains the fundamentals
Alabama commerce to laymen interested in investing’
Southern businesses. Guests have included company
dents and representatives in various fields from
ities to airlines.
The network operates 62:30 programming hours weekly.
a recent speech at Syracuse University, General Electric
rporation Vice President, Dr. W. R. Baker, said, “Some
the finest ETV work today is being done in the State of
"i ”
Yet the network cannot be classed as a heavy tax bur-
as its cost of operation is but $7.50 per telecast hour.
(One Photograph Attached to Original.)
ALABAMA CHEMICAL PROCE:
INDUSTRY IS BOOMING ss
From an output valued at $44 million i
0 tput v million in 193!
peeing ce industry has an output <n
muon m 1956. Continuing growth of th
nasty in 1957 was phenominal, cia
ahama’s unexcelled waterway: Varri
ma’s | rways, the Warrior-'
bee-Mobile rivers and the Tennessee river in ‘Nort
though there are many inland plant.
; there are many plants as well.
the Mobile river include the $12 million lignid poe
Fporeerade caustic soda plant, using salt as raw
i ie great Alabama salt dome contains over an esti
D billion tons of 99% pure salt. Test holes were d
Ger alt a mile deep and never reached bottom.
estimated to be enough salt to supply the world f
hundred years. ° “
Other new Alabama plants i i
ih Mlaba plants make insecticides, D:
teat pentaerythritol, formaldehyde, casei mee
bist ene, Sommercial fertilizers, commercial am i
monium nitra: d nitri i i =e
moe e and nitric acid, ammonium sulp
In the Warrior-Tombigh: i i
; r10r-T'ombighee-Mobile Rive
now 34 great chemical plants; in the ‘Tacineaee ee
there are 13 chemical plants. In inland ‘Alabama
there are some 153 large and small chemical plants.
employment in Alabama’s chemical industry is ay
malely 11,000 persons. ee
An Alabama chemical
plant manager makes this
ment: “We can gi mt i dation te
(f0l.1110] new industry, thinking of Ieeten ae
x ustry, thi ocating
om ine quality id the manpower here. ‘After some
ning, men who never Saw a. pre i
brought our pla: t ceeproeed daa Ga
seas ey plant up to capacity production in less
(One Picture Attached to Original.)
ALABAMA TAX LAWS nehise tax is computed at $2.50 per
DUSTRIAI ° in the
FAVOR INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS : aployed in the
Along with its many other attractive features,
offers a favorable tax structure to industry. S$
Local Governments in Alabama have traditionall:
nized that it is preferable to encourage growth th:
tractive tax policies rather than through seeking i
revenues from unsound and punitive tax measw
econoniie justification for this general policy is
out by the fact that the State’s revenues for sche
increased more than ten (10) times during the las
teen (17) years. This is phenomenal progress,
primarily from the inereased industrial activity ig 1113]
state. Only two major increases in taxes have been:
against Alabama business and industry in the last
[fol. 1112] (20) years. In 1951 the sales tax was i
one cent, making a three cent rate, and in 1955 the eor;
franchise tax fifty (50) cents, making it $2.50 per thet
Alabama’s corporation income tax rate is three
Federal income tax is deductible along with other
deductions in most instances closely following de
allowable for federal tax purposes. The adminis!
all of the state’s tax statutes is under capable i
exercising impartial and fair treatment to all tax
The sales tax law in Alabama contains ing
processing, and machinery exemptions which avoid
taxation and promote the ability of business and in
to pass along to customers a tax which is not py:
several times before reaching the consumer. The s:
in one of the most outstanding developments in th
of state and local taxation in recent years; howe’
Alabama law is one of the fairest in the nation to : . ss oy
and industry. , ist to the local economy is furnished by the Army
Many localities in Alabama grant exemptions to ation School at Fort Rucker, Alabar seuea by abun-
dastries from the major portion of property ad “Wiregrass” section 1s especie \y ce cies, -Othor
taxes for periods up to ten years. There is no at water for both industrial and weeks clay and sand
use tax on raw materials, machinery or parts aral resources include great pe a 'e labor supply of
mining or manufacturing. Favorable ad valorem tax. sits, a mild climate and ample Ba a y
ranging from $2.10 to $3.60 per hundred in most a -type easily trained men and women.
applied against industrial properties based on 3
valuations at an average of approximately 35%. ;
e corporations ha ties |
ore other states, fair and equitab'
Iministrative authorities. , ; ee
Nese are the principal taxes o Bbosknes weiie
i bama.
_ It can be said that Ale sa i p
innate and its citizens are interested in agen
ess, and expansion to the extent of ree
ragement jn this direction pays dividends in im
state revenues.
(One Photograph Attached to Original.)
HOME OF NATIONAL PEANUT FESTIVAL
i i f
the so-called “Wiregrass” section 0.
ma is Dothan, population 50,000, home of alee
Festival every October. Nearby is, eee
ia: temous town on account of the poll weevil monuE one
“Wiregrass” section in southeast Alabama fae
ef ic revolution in the past 12 years. Peanw' nays
Jace ec iton as the chief agricultural crop, and the w. hol
4 ae of the section now is well tee ee
. nd i . Prior to Wor y :
4 a we Ea Principal farm crops today
as corn, truck, crops, livestock and dairying. 4n-
y
trial development has consisted of many small and stable
ustries, employing local labor. ae ag ee pre
h “turniture, cigars, textues, , toys
* pee fertilizer, “beads, cotton oil and peanut oil.
The largest town in
SECTION
T OF THE WIREGRASS
THE TEAS OF ALABAMA
LA
‘Y OF DOTHAN, ALABAY
N’ MA
TON COUNTY, ALABA!
OTHAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
LOOK FOR THE WOMAN IN THE CAS
For the unvarnished truth about a situation,
women! These are wives of managers of new and
ing successful industries located in Dothan and
County, Alabama. They are our best advertisemen’
[fol. 1114] will speak to you—emphatically—abor
city’s modern schools, churches, hospitals, pretty
excellent shopping facilities and its friendly atm
They know from experience the advantages of locating
industry in Houston County. Here is what they say:
ENE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
RCIAL, AND
3 FOR RETAIL, COMME \L, 7
| INDUSTRIAL LOCATIONS IN THE SOUTE-
7 ASK ENGEL
better
a i ery field—one firm that has ‘bei
é LT ee tatt, and the reputation i sets Ca
y iness property in the southeast, gel.
th oF et aiaatis anil the southeast, our pppoe
Andee of the real estate market offers you the larg
“Of course were were vitally interested w.
husbands considered moving to Houston Coun!
had lengthy conferences, discussing every
business potentials and social life. We visited
We liked what we saw and heard. The local
were friendly and cooperative. The communi
very attractive. We agreed with our husbands
" 7 . :
Bowe, ane Oe ae realize more each day ho tment ean secure fina ning on
properties you desire. EE
‘puilding constructed to your
r mortgage-loan depar'
commercial and industrial
IDEAL INDUSTRIAL LOCATION
MARKET: 25 million live within a 500 mile radius
ing the southeast.
LABOR: 250,000 population in 10 county area, i
easily trained native workers and farm labor.
TRANSPORTATION: Rail, air, water, moto:
lines, 9 commercial plane flights daily, 3 U.S. hig
4state highways (farm to market road network also),
river channel.
WATER: Houston County adjoins the great Chat
River for 25 miles, average daily floy 12 Dillion g
ample for industrial and domestic supplies.
RESOURCES: Temperate climate, lumber, clay,
fast growing slash pine forests.
FACILITIES: An abundance of hydro-electrie
natural gas, and large quantities of underground
ANY
NGEL REALTY COMP!
1921 ‘Beat ‘Avenue, North—Birmingham, Alabama
WE'RE ON THE GO IN MONTGOMERY
ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
: ER Y—where conditions are ideal
é one epee eee and distribution of eel
fers ¥ nusual opportunity for successful oper: :
sles te The First National Bank of Montgomery
es mide fmancial needs of Alabama for 86 years
: affors its complete banking and trust services to new
dustry moving into the area.
Levu
SERVING ALABAMA SINCE 1871
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
Montgomery
Montgomery, Alabama
Member Federal Deposit Insurance Corporati
his Tennessee Valley in Alabama. fom the ieee
: kes whose waters spawn inaus Fi
aed he "ecteational centers of Alabama’s northern
land. | : .
Un grant Jakes, mainly in central Alebanies ag
gular watersport facilities, have been ee ve ee
of the Alabama Power Company and ade pe
the Tombighbee-Warrior waterway. Lakes i oe naga
Pedan northeast of Montgomery, have been pee ne
oped as recreational centers, with lakeside 5
es and fishing camps.
ALABAMA IS A GOOD PLACE TO LIV
Industrial management and workers who locate
baa are a happy breed, for they are living in one
outstanding recreational States of the nation?
Alabama has wide, safe, silver sand beaches whi
washed by the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. P.
sweep over semi-tropical waters; pine trees and p
scrub reach down to the coastline. Some of the
finest deep sea fishing at reasonable, uncommerei
rates, is enjoyed in historic Mobile Bay and th
Exotic and internationally famous Ballingrath €
near Mobile are beautiful 12 months of the year.
shrimp fleet anchored at Bayou LeBatre, where th
ish moss hangs from the old oak trees, is a pie!
any artist.
Good Fishing
abama has many major rivers, and almost samba
ler streams and creeks. All these rivers and ogre
ith fish. Many Alabamans live within walking ds
oof first rate fishing. Thanks to great agai =
vants to do SO, ry
+ water, anyone who wan ‘ 3
g is aa eaides quail and dove and rabbits and Sie
Sa geese, Alabamans enjoy deer hunting and tu y
ne i Jum and Conferedate
hrines of the ante-bellum en
Wee tetian omni skeletons and are 3 it es
shoe Bend where “Old Hickory” Andrew Jackson
x Indian Nation.
batia, on Mobile Bay, has been a recres
al social center for over a century. The present Gent
fel there is the third hotel of the same name a anne
hi jous living in m -
st. This hotel offers gracious gs pote
i vith every convenience and recreation,
i A en posting, fishing, tennis, riding, and
> g:
Adige jJeast, Alabama has an ideal jemperate oh
jn which to enjoy life; so that, indeed, “livin’ is easy
pleasant.
National Scenery
Alabama has mountains in its northern regions,
rhododendron, mountain laurel and other flowering
cloak the hillsides, forming brilliant foregrounds te
tain scenic drives which wind round curves, overlo
leys, and offer far mountain vistas bathed in a blu
lit haze. Near Guntersville are giant caverns with
mites and semi-precious stones. At Fort Payne is
feet-deep and 25-mile-long gulch named Little River Cx
[fol. 1117] after the rocky stream which flows al
base. Mount Cheaha, near Talladega, is the highest
in the State. .
Alabama has great lakes. The mighty Tennessee
flows across its northern counties, and vast lake
been created by Wilson, Wheeler and Guntersvilk
dams. Water skiing, boating, fishing and swimm
available to all who have the desire and the equipr
enjoy their favorite watersport. The pine-cove!
118] TACHED
EE PHOTOGRAPHS AT
(THR TO ORIGINAL.)
2
.
LID
ALABAMA IS IMPORT
E ANT AL
PRODUCER UMINUME
Mobile is the principal U
i principal U. 8. por y
ic ore from which aluminum Q mma wee
€ largest alumina plant in the world ith
Scutyelent to 100,000 tons of aluminum annie
Peat oF the Aluminum Company of Agieten ve
ies y , ee ye Ue $12 million plant expansion,
apacity by 44%. Alumina i i
me es uns the fir st step in e service is the new office building constructed at Bir-
bi Upstate in the Tennessce River vallepai teed Suto Stal Conorton” TL seeing nd fo
bala, is the great aluminum plant of Re vnolle
Ho ae} ts aoe annual capacity was 100
Jf0" 4429] pounds of aluminum. Whe
« completed, it will produce annually 340 mil i
nee and operations in May, 1941, over 1g
nas of aluminum have been produced Li
plant. Its products i ‘ Come
oo a 8 include aluminum sheet, foil, cal
HUMAN PROGRESS
alizing the importance of the human values and know-
i that home ownership creates a greater sense of re-
ibility toward community and job, the Galbreath
zation has changed the concept of industrial housing
evitalizing some 15 “company towns” in Alabama and
these homes available to thousands.
e adequate offices and knowing the many advantages
e unique building service offered by the Galbreath
1120] organization, was able to secure a modern,
r-made facility without the depletion of capital. This
aght, new, modern building has contributed much to the
an progress of T.C.1. employees and human progress
e foundation of our way of life.
hen personal sights are raised, the level of our com-
ity living is elevated, John W. Galbreath & Co. is
d to have had a part in the personal and community
ogress of Alabama.
‘yroll exceeds $10 million. I
payroll of $3 million, 0 employees at an additional s
won Hastertult plant is where molt
iis name pa ee JOHN W. GALBREATIL & CO.
Company aluminum ‘founds used in the new Ford 3 : COLUMBUS PITTSBURGH NEW YORK
ation at Listerhill nea x j ee COLUMB : B ae
ar thi
plant has 200,000 square feet Reynolds plant. Th {E PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
employ about 800 people, a , :
of Gr aoe castings for Ford engines and
ord is reported to have costes ond trans ALABAMA AND SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES
pounds of aluminum over the dest 10 ae PARTNERS IN PROGRESS
ary i ears, said ¢
gest aluminum contract in history : 'S, Said te ganized in 1946, Southern Industries Corporation has
(ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHE wn into a well-developed holding company. Among the
oe ‘D TO ORIG: een subsidiary companies which we own and operate
en aluminum in
RAND HOTEL AND LAKEWOOD GOLF CLUB,
INT CLEAR, Ala—the South’s finest resort hotel.
ous living in modern surroundings. Golf, bathing,
ting, riding, lawn bowling. Open the year ‘round.
AeiU
ae HOUSE HOTEL—Mobile’s leading ho
Sadie charm and atmosphere of the Dee Si
oon a yoned. excellent food, bright sample same
HEENDERSON SUGAR REFINERY, INC—ref
Sissi River. outh and in most states east of the
SOUTHERN OYSTER §
ae SHELL MILLING COR
ve cers of crushed oyst a
Nationally s yster shell in th
EGGSHELL BRAND wens of PILOT BRAN aman SteamsHip CoRPORATION
[fol. 1121] BAY TOWING r ey for poultry. General Cargo and Passenger
INC.—dredges oyster and clam is EDGING COMP, North Atlantic, Gulf and Paci
off the Gulf coasts of Alabama, Plodde. aie tinental Europe, United Kingdom,
Louisiana. ma, Florida, Mississ and the Far Hast.
per poe) GRAVEL COMPANY, INC.—dred, ATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION OF Pusrto Rico
mined nd gravel from Alabama rivers; producers of = Sea-Land Trailerships between North Atlantie and
MeP Tinto e ores ete. Puerto Rican Ports beginning March Ist. Also Ger
QUALITY SEAF CKING CORPORATION eral Cargo and Passenger Service from U. S. North
principally bho F OOD. COMPANY —packers of +o Puerto Rico.
iy Ss } 7
DUNBAR lab tonelly marketed under the
We at Southern i
§ Industries Corporation T:
her aer the opportunity it gave us to orow Oar
S Sion is i h
sepa proof of what industry can do in this
SOUTHERN INDUS
MOBILE, ALABAMA me SP ERSES
122]
SHIP NEAR OR FAR WITH McLEAN
{NDUSTRIES, INC.
[x-Actawric SreamsHiP CORPORATION
Sea-Land Trailerships between New York, Wilming-
= ton, Del., Miami, Houston, New Orleans and Tampa.
E Also Intercoastal General Cargo and Passenger Ser-
E viee between Pacific Coast Ports and Atlantic Coast
E Porta and Puerto Rico.
Service from the U. 8.
fie Coast Ports to Con-
the Mediterranean
‘Atlantic and Gulf Coast Ports
ax Ixpusteies, bye.
General Offices
61 St. Joseph Street
& Mobile, Alabama
Ae Branch offices and agents in principal U. S. Cities.
HONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
ENGINEERED FOR QUALITY
| THE COMPLETE LINE UALCO ALUMINUM
WINDOWS
windows are known internationally as highest quality
cial buildings and homes. Versatile, beautiful,
© stocks in New York area.
(A SERIES OF PILOT
OGRAPH,
TO ORIGINAL.) S Annac
commer
nomical. Warehous'
SOUTHERN SASH
SALES & SUPPLY CO., INC.
Sheffield, Alabama
aban
[fol. 1123]
“WE CAME, WE SAW, WE STAYED?
—GENERAL ELE
inte! d assistance of
it i tant, the interest ani t
a oI cone did not slacken, with the inert
AD Phe ba > That true ‘Southern hospita a
img ene ith the Chairman of the Industrial De-
it i £ Com-
reent Commtice of ie Eanes oe a a
i me effective —wh y es
a eel Raneetor in small groups, met with ie agee Hi
oe clergy, education, real estate and foe pestia
‘ore thoroughly entertained ot (Woman)?
w return WI’
ontiy. ee Sher to their new home and began
ant:
i i dventure.
With —— ths of operations in poe aes
ther oing rate that required 15 months ofe hanna
< Sa of the major tube competitors wno
pal
ewhere.””
(PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
Here is one way Alabama people aid industri
seekers. Anniston, Alabama, like other Alabama
munities, has a community Industrial Development
mittee, the members of which are local experts on ng
resources, finance, power, water, labor force, taxes,
markets, etc. The experience quoted below is in the
of an official of the $10 million General Electric
tube works built a few years ago in Anniston. Part
experience in selecting a site, he describes as follows®
“We visited Anniston and communities of other
With Anniston: We liked its general appearane:
the business and residential sections were neat and
reflecting industry and pride. The schools were well
and we could sense that here was planning for maint
adequate facilities. The city was free of tave:
“joints” which would attract young people. A most
ful and complete YMCA was practically finished.
cleverly arranged combinations of pools, parks and
grounds were strategically located all around the chi
recreation areas. A few contracts showed that the gw
force and fire department were courteous, friend
effective. Our wives shopped the downtown busine:
tion. We told clerks we were thinking of making ont.
here and they assured us we would like Annista:
tried hamburger stands, soda fountains, a gasolini
—and found friendly service everywhere. We found
fine churches and many active civic clubs. In the
tial section people willingly showed us through their
and frankly answered our questions about the by
contractor and his work. And, we found the bank
bankers friendly and aggressive. Frank, too, but
confident and warmly interested in the commuity’s g
“Finding these services satisfactory and the labor x
adequate, we made known our true identity, went
to work and within eight weeks our coming was
announced in Anniston,
nT WAY TO AND FROM
BILE—GATEV
PORE OF MO WORLD MARKETS
i 2 is generally
ze eet sie wih en agnor eoomy
“than eon Pe ote
Gulf of Meson ad form, Mebie Te a ea
aie eh the top 10 Gad ost amo te US.
the Barca onan 1008 as 1g ion on
78 zion Total toma yandled was
1 Toement 1 eee oF den climaxed ne
construction of the ‘AMabama State Docks—nov
ion ocean termina!
ifiev
port tonnage through the port. It provides safe
and efficient handling of inbound and outbound Fr
cargo on and off ocean going ships. The State Docks:
brought about an ever increasing diversification and ¥a
of commodities moving through the port, such as Ing
steel, naval stores, cotton, nitrates from Chile, potash.
Europe, sugar from Cuba and the West Indies,
from Central America, aluminum ore, iron ore, cast:
pipe, newsprint, paper, peat moss, molasses, erndé
canned goods, crude rubber, jute bagging, chemicals, :
nuts, plate glass, liquors, asphalt, soybean and peanut,
wrapping paper and many other miscellaneous con
ties.
The ability of the State Docks to handle comme
efficiently and economically has attracted shippers fi
over the world to the use of its facilities. The Docks’
of traffic has so increased that a $500,000 expansi¢
modernization became necessary and has just be
pleted.
The Docks provide Alabama industry with modern
ties for importation of needed raw materials and
[fol. 1126] a world-wide outlet for exportation of
made industrial products.
In addition to the excellent general cargo piers, ¢
terminal mechanically handles minerals and raw m
from overseas. Frozen foods are stored at the
cold storage and freezing plant for export, or for
movements such as the frozen fish from Norway. A!
me from neighboring southern states, and the
adustrialized mid-continent U. S., and plans now ane
made by the State Docks Board to build a SL mill as
rnational Trade Center building, 9 stories high an
. of floor space. ; ;
scat the ee significant developments in Alabama 6
recent acquisition of a seventy-four hundred acre trac
river front land immediately north of Mobile. A ee
options up to seventy-four years has _been given me
ama Industrial Development Association, a non-proht
srporation created by the presidents of the enigracany
Petional, First National and Merchants National Banks.
e Association has in turn offered the State of ‘dabatta
h acreage as will lend itself to the future expansion 0:
Alabama State Docks. This makes available more han
ee miles of river-front extending north from the end of
e present forty foot channel. It will provide for 1%
imes the present capacity of the Alabama State Docks.
he State is presently engaged in engineering a mas e
for determination of the land acres it may need and
@ over-all development of the industrial area generally.
The area, when developed, will offer sites in close prom
01. 1127] imity to Mobile and Chicksaw, served throug’
State Docks Terminal Railway, with four trunk ine
Esiroads having ready access to the pbeilt-line highway an
both barge and ocean going water transportation. With
able process to water, power, natural gas, coal and
it will afford an unmatched situation for industries
which these facilities are primary requirements.
tween tank cars and ship. All these units to make
of Mobile a model port.
Steam pile drivers are pounding cement pilings
waterfront for three new berths. The ore terminal
expanded by 30 per cent. Dredges have finished
four more feet off the channel bottom, deepening
feet to accommodate any size ship. Shippers a3
5
NATURAL GAS BRING LOWER COSTS
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY IN CENTRAL A
ALABAMA GAS CORPORA!
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
JANUARY 15, 1958
Executives in Charge : . foot To
of Company Plans ic feet. -squiry regarding 2 location in o
For Expansion @ invite Your ane piee area.
ALABAMA GAS CORPORATION
In this supplement of The New York Times you'd Birmingham, Alabama
many interesting facts about our wonderful stat
vincing reasons why it’s worthy of high priority
plans for expansion.
Gentlemen:
OUR SERVICE AREA
COMMUNITIES IN a 5S
So Pll mention only a few things to demonstra’ (POPULATION IN ae oma BE 500) es
" fy; Tat < ‘i : a
hen you cons fo Concer Signa C&S MMMM oy (gon) Atala (8500) Auburn (1380), Bes
(fol. 1128] While adequate meeting all demands : ‘
rownville (800) Gone
1957 (including more than 300 industrial customers}, ay eee
; a 3 2,100) Greensboro
ni y a0) Holt (3,500)
dale (2,800) Langdale
0) Lipscomb (8,100)
400) ate A eaves
3,01 ew!
Brod oe) Opelika (16,000)
form (2,000) ieee
600) Shawmut (3,300) Springdale
fa Pures & ) Tarrant City (10,100) es
RB. AL Puryear, Jeo 700) Uniontown (1,800), Vestavis
reali 2,200) Wetumpka (4,300)
P
(
alation 974,600
Alabama Gas is growing with Central Alabama—ax:
location for your new plant. We want you not on
customer, but also as a friend and neighbor.
Drop me a line and let me know your location
ments.
Sincerely,
If more dependable, lower fuel cost is vital to the
able operation of your business or industry, we invit
earnest consideration of Central Alabama—that rg
growing pleasant-to-live-in area served by
GAS. Lfere 49 progressive municipalities and comm
comprising 25% of the state’s entire population offer
USTRIAL
UR MORE THAN 300 IND
SOME OF OH “CUSTOMERS
i i Auburn)
Polytechnic Institute (Aub
va euscial and ae aa ca
; d Cement Co. (Bi
ST eager Corporation (Tuscaloosa)
Lis
Harbison- Walker Refractories Co. (Bessemer)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Company (Montgomery)
Leclede-Christy Company (Bessemer)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company (Birmin
Monsanto Chemical Company (Anniston)
Pepperell Manufacturing Co. (Opelika)
Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co. (Bessemer)
Republic Steel Corporation (Gadsden)
The Lamson and Sessions Co. (Birmingham)
Tuskegee Institute (Tuskegee)
U.S. Pipe and Foundry Co. (Birmingham)
University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa)
ALABAMA’S RESOURCE MANAGEMEN
The people of Alabama are aggressively working
conservation of natural resources, and the Alal
partment of Conservation, one of the largest units
bama’s state government, has five divisions: Fe
Game and Fish, State Parks, State Lands and, Seafe
[fol. 1130] Alabama maintains 44 public areas for
door recreation or for preservation of historical
These include 10 major parks six minor parks, 16
lakes, seven historical sites and five scenic par!
total of 41,317.85 acres. During the past year atter
at the Alabama State Parks was 2,791,349 people.
Most of Alabama’s parks provide fishing, swi
boating, skiing and other water sports, but the ¢
portion of the waters of the state lie in a spraw
work of navigable waters and their tributaries, and
14,000 small fish ponds and lakes. Tidal gates have.
established on the large lake in Gulf Shores, con
the salt water lake to fresh water, stockéd with bln
and large-mouth bass, now the largest fertilized lake
world.
One of Alabama’s greatest assets is abundant
the population of which is increasing steadily. The B
and fisherman have more acres of publie hunting
ing at the present time than ever before. Some
hatchery fish are stocked annually and deer and wild &
are being stocked in every county.
the Gulf of Mexico Alabama shoreline, the seafoods
n
i i i sters, shrimp, fish and
ge ra a al pasiness annually. The
of Conservation pro-
is divisi dump-
+ of this division, has been >
Tes i the Guif waters to create arti-
Old fish to the small marine life
ch attaches to the metal, large fish seek the small fish
the resultin, concentration of finny denizens provides
ellent Duiing tor red snapper, grouper, king mackerel
ducer of crushed oyster shells
thousands of tons of oyster
osits off the Alabama Gulf
to processing plants,
ign countries. y : 5
rannfacture of cement, surfacing at
beds, roofing.
. 1131
VAY A
AVIGABLE WATERWAYS SERVE ALABAM.
INDUSTRY
i i 4
Alabama has the best river eye tite ne bee
i ivers flow across its rolung : ,
oe noahos, Tombigbee, Coosa and the mighty Tennes
train-
parges can move 20
jes. se tows on the Tennessee
tg amtils “from the North into
i cht. Another may bring
Sion. bushel: ret from Minneapolis,
wing $3 a ton. Still another may pring oil or are"
“the refineries of Fort Arthur, ae as
- The barges are raised or lowered aroun eid
ery dav; the channel with 9-foot draft is marke
; the d
fe Ts ae ae dvantage of TVA power, building
: i taking a i
ae _ Sorthern ‘Alabama. Three great TVA lakes
desu
i inki Alabama
Georgia, to Mobile, Alabama, finns —— =
astrial cities of Gadsden, SB ionenes a
Port of Mobile. The Chai oe,
BT ciees of the State, has a = es ce
ico whi da waterway upstream t x 5
: an Trae ore Tacks and dams on this river will ex-
navigation to Phenix City, Alabama.
ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
spread across the State, with approximately 2,500 m
shoreline. Roughly, one-fourth of the total of all
lakes is in Alabama.
To serve the needs of Alabama industries on the
nessee River, the State of Alabama has constructed
terminals there, and the inland river docks are bei
tended to other river systems throughout the State,
July 15, at Florence, Alabama, Guvernor James E. ¥
ceremoniously took the controls of the crane thai
work on the foundation of the first State river docks,
initial dock facilities was construction of five cell:
two additional cells to serve the cooperative-built
elevator adjacent to the site. A month later, work x
gun on the dock near Huntsville and land was pai
for a terminal at Decatur.
Alabama is bountifully blessed with river systems.
necting Alabama’s industrial city of Birmingham,
bama’s Port of Mobile is the most important water
in the southeast—the Mobile-Tombigbee-Warrior wai
This nine-foot barge waterway moves petroleum, ch
erude oil, pulpwood, sulfur, iron and steel products,
sand, cement, and gravel, and other products along
route. It carries the bulk of commerce moved on Alek
inland waterways—inore than all other 27 navigable
[fol. 1132] waterways in southeastern coastal area.
big item moving upstream is some 2,000,000 tons y
iron ore from Cerro Bolivar, the “iron mountain’
ezuela, destined to the blast furnaces of Birmin
where it is mixed with the Alabama ores for iron and
making. Another is bauxite, the basic aluminum ore.
Mobile-Tombighee and Warrior flow into Mobile
tying with the Gulf-Intercoastal waterway system a
are of the Gulf of Mexico. These are the navigable
of Alabama.
Work is underway to create navigable waterwe!
other Alabama rivers. The Coosa-Alabama rivers,
Alabama Power Company has been authorized to build
new hydroelectire dams, is under study by the U. &
Engineers to determine the feasibility of a barge-way
ALABAMA ... PIONEER IN INDUSTRY
i in Alabama—a state
dustrial development is an old ne ne Ee eee
in the vanguar i
ah ies ae place in the South during the past three
essed of almost diyatiess ane segurtce, apelin’
ae ‘Alabamna_offers outstanding advantages for
a Board is proud, ‘to serve saan as to
ea part m the slate fled data on some of the excel
Bet locations available in Alabama
AI AILROAD
ABOARD AIR LINE R 7
THROUGH THE HEART OF THE souTH
x UR PLANT
ACE AND A PLAN F OR YO
—_ IN MONTGOMERY
INDUSTRIAL PACKAGE OFFER ox
i v TVISION
i tion write INDUSTRIAL D
OE TGOMERY. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Box 79
Montgomery, Alabama
Lise
AROUND THE CLOCK SERVICE 4. At all existing mills, expansion programs a7 under
“al B4i : vere recently completed. : ;
38-1261 HE 38-1628 cars are three paper mills in Mobile, and in that city
THTh COMPLETE FACILITIES and a paper board ao
IN THE HEART OF TILE SHIPPING DISTRIGg
Builders and Repairers of Tugboats and Barges. ere per ante Pe “joan, Under
Repairers and Converters of Merchant Ships and
Naval Vessels. .
MOBILE SHIP REPAIR, INC.
ALABAMA STATE DOCKS
Mobile, Alabama
. :
tepped up program of forest management, increasing
yield to seven-tenths of a cord a year is seen as &
tical possibility. Fach year over two million cords of
wood are harvested and sold to mills capable of a daily
put of nearly 3,000 tons of pulp and paper. This out-
will be increased by 600 tons per day within the next
PAPER INDUSTRY GROWS AND THRIVES
IN ALABAMA 2
Paper making is big business in Alabama.
Mills in the state now produce paper at the
nearly a million tons a year. Upon completion of bai
ead expansion programs under way, Alabama mills
have an annual paper production « i e
over 1,300,000 tons on a basis of 350 pee Mag st industry. In dollar value the, got caer es
compares to 180,000 tons produced in the state ays. roe roducts industries are exceeded only by, — ee
(fol. 1134] considerably less than a month’s out’ stk of: y ee eee ‘gue oper Pi
mill now operating in Mobile, the largest kraft i for they replenis® theme growing of god and
an the world. J paper, “on and management. The growls of woes and i
A reasonable estimate of the repl: aversion into marketable products has reacne such a
bama paper making facilities fa 340 ene Glee bs gh stage of ae ral xt fp tie tae 30 er
Bam, paper maling fac : ars, , exceeds the annual cut. In the a BA 2
S in supporting woodlands. Of that sum, a ee have been classified as woodland
million dollars is the approximat
s is anate cost of new! : ;
and planned construction. Ty comp out of crop production due to erosion,
Over 8,000 persons are employ i :
8, yr aploved directl : 5 a j i thi
paper mills, and additional sigaeands vores, re Mahara: eT second aned wil rer a0
of their income by cutting and hauling, pulpwood
sure, steady demand for pulpwood has made a new
orgp of ie once lovely pine, to the profit of farmers
others who own small and large parcel 2
million acres of forest lands. EP Dateels of Bibs
There are five paper mills and a m
er mills an arket pul
Alabama, and two more paper making plants are
\NE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
1135] ALABAMA’S MIRACLE CROP
the gums and the other soft-woods
the material for the State’s third
dings. In spite of clearing lands for agricultural pro-
etion, 6376 or approximately 21 million acres remain
est land in private ownership.
In 1956 Alabama eat 1,684,874,000 hoard feet of umber
which 64% was pine and 36% hardwood. In addition
forest produced: 2,111,244 cords of pulpwood and.
ical wood, 1,417,367 cross ties and switch ties, 232,7 70
ne ties, 1,581,560 mine props, 855,002 poles and piles,
din
363,546 tons of stumpwood, 40,134 barrels of crude 1137]
pentine. &
For the past fifteen years, the new growth forest
furnished annually greater quantities of commercial
products than did the original or virgin growth. This
been made possible by the State’s program of forest
protection, forest management assistance, and refo:
tion which is carried on in cooperation with forest
owners. Fires are so well controlled that over 98 pe
of this forest land is free from fire. Less than two per
burns annually.
The Division of Forestry operates three nurseri
the production of forest trees seedlings for reforesting.
lands. During the 1956-1957 planting season, the nurs
produced and shipped 61 million 1-year forest tree
lings. Production for the 1957-1958 planting season i
ROOM TO GROW IN ALABAMA
i ber their boy-
i executives of today remember | 08%
as wo Mom brought their clothes a little big
vide “room to grow.”
we 0 territory in Alabama provides ample ropa.
all the facilities industry needs for presem
macy and future expansion.
We serve this area well .
ama, is our home and hi
_ . know it well—for Mobile,
as been for more than a cen-
quiries addressed to owt
¥ 7 BSIDE
1, INDUSTRIAL VICE PRES ;
ALABAMA. Or to any GM&O Traffie Office will
ive prompt attention.
ently estimated at 100 million. Since demand continu: GEM&O
[fol. 1136] exceed supply, it is planned to grow at GULF, MOBILE & OHIO
125 million trees for the 1958-1959 planting season. RAILROAD
The virgin forests have faded into history. They
been replaced by healthy, vigorous and rapidly
trees of high quality—Alabama’s miracle crop.
NE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
Mn YDUSTRIES
YATURAL GAS HELPS IND 2.
wa GROWN IN ALABAMA
. Company’s pipe
hows Southern Natural Gas :
7 oe which delivers each day millions of seabie,
yataral gas to Alabama’s cities, towns and industries.
(MAP ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
. 5 hundreds of progres-
Within this fast growing area are ‘ indus-
character, price range and in such quantities and ‘ istanding advantages ee ay
such time limits as you may specify. the South. Here vain markets
We have located our plant in Alabama; we hope Si find abundant natural resources . - oes ate an
Alabama will locate too. When you do, let us take kers . . . plentiful w iy’
of your employee housing needs.
INDUSTRIAL RELOCATION DIVISION
LUMBER FABRICATORS, INC.
Fort Payne, Alabama
MAKERS OF KINGSBERRY HOMES -
(ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIG
WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO SLEEP?
Since we have built and financed over 15,000 he
the Southeast, we can help managers of new manufacka
plants to develop employee housing.
We will be glad to analyze your requirements to
mine the availability and adequacy of housing wher
want to locate, and to arrange for new housing of
rnments.
hether or not x _
m our pipe lines, our CC
“ ‘Alabama the best location for y
oy expect to use a single foot of
oa at Company will gladly help you
our plant. We cor-
enemete
dieu
ext of the TVA Widows Creek stream plant to give an
ded capacity of 500,000 kilowatts, making a total present
Ea proposed generating capacity of 5,402,970 kilowatts.
VA operates 1,388 miles of transmission lines and Ala-
na Power Company 5,670 miles, not jneluding distribu-
» Hines. Distribution lines jn Alabama are in excess of
00 miles. Power plant employees in ‘Alabama total about
dially invite you to wri
in y rite us for specifi
eee. or better still, come South ani cere:
ersonally guide f thi
tae y guided tour of this land of growing e
SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS
- JTHERN Ns AS COMPAN
Watts Buildings Birmingham 3 Ala a
[fol. 1139}
ALABAMA IS RICH IN IND
x POWER cnt aad
New industries coming ¢ i
of industrial pow conn to Alabama will find ample sa
; ated generating capacit " i
in Alabama is 3.856.970 ee oe rn ee
power plants which in the current fiscal ean
over 24, billion kilowatt hours of cloctricity em
ioe ns broduetion came from 14 hydro-electric plant
as ¥ plants. The principal producers are the
r ve 7 C ompany and TVA. In addition there are
op al ive producers, Alabama Electric and Warrio
Electric, which operate five small plants. Total cari
vestment in electric generati i
proximately $1 billion ne Panis im Alabama
he phenomenal growth of the electric power industry
4140] in Alabama is shown by the generating capacity
the Alabama Power Company jn the last 10 years, which
increased 119.6 per cent.
your plant or factory needs electricity, Alabama has
— PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
TRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY RANKS FIRST
IN ALABAMA
sof January 1, 1957, Alabama had a total of 21 iron ore
furnaces with a total annual capacity of 5,400,340 net
of iron in July, 1957, pig jron production was 99% of
acity. Coke is a primary product used in smelting iron
and Alabama has 1161 coke ovens with an annual
ity of 5,810,500 tons of coke. Alabama has 31 open
Electric Production
y furnaces with a capacity of 5,001,021 net tons of
ee ee of electricity is about 12 billion
hours. his, approximately a lit i
6 Hillion Kilowety howrs i fee sedation than bh : ‘Alabama steel products include plats, merchant bars,
cial uses. Rates of course, vary, but the aver: a i a Es, Sep ‘ier wire roe em, le
rt Hee Bees Oe ia ae age indi , splice bars, tie plate bars, wire rods, blooms, billets,
“ope eae scene Ba tac Boge wn and barbed wire fence, pipe and tubing and other
additional electric generating pl
‘ ant
een of Lay Dam and acnprenstion of tod
on on ee pene River to give an added cay
ei kilowatts; one new dam on the Warri:
i } ; ne Wa:
bes oa generating plants at present Waror Bi
ermme gation dam to give added capaci
kilow atts; two stream plants under Sonmemeee ou
give an added capacity of 390,000 kilowatts; and 4
?
‘There are approximately 400 Alabama plants engaged in
sanfacture of primary mnetals, employing 51,000 people,
eth total output valued at $801 million—a gain over 1949
43%. Output is made up approximately of furnace
ducts 55%, foundry products 18%, smelter products
shapes, etc., 10%.
here are approximately 100 plants engaged in mant-
are of fabricated metals, employing 8,000 people, with
£18
total output of $74 million—an increase over 1949 of
[fol. 1141) These include such items as farm mach anned areas. -
electrical machinery, transportation equipment, incig t a great deal to Huntsville,
railway freight cars, instruments and miscellaneous a tis beneficial help the impact of Red-
ucts.
gional shopping, highway commer-
No estimate is available of brown ore reserve in Alal
but the U. S. Department of the Interior in 1953 estima » from the State Planning and Industrial Development
Alabama’s “tentative red ore reserves” to be 2,160,4 for over ten years, @ determining factor recently
tons. Proximity of Port of Mobile makes it possibl i ocate there the paper mill of the Container
Alabama steel industry to import annually approx erporation. Other cities which ar® being, aces
2 million tons of high grade iron ore from Venezuela, tion of large manufacturing plants include Demopolis
Steel is made at the Gadsden, Alabama, plant of: Linden, where large pape? mills are being contin
Republic Steel corporation in eight open hearth fu e Fort Gaines lock and dam on the Chattahooche
and in two electric furnaces at a total rated annual cay ver will provide opportunities in industrial and reerea-
of 1,197,000 tons. These electric furnaces are the Sout Esnal development along the eastern side of Alabama. The
largest. Over 5,000 employees turn out pig iron, ingots te Planning and Industrial Development Boars is work-
billets, slabs, blooms, angles and reinforcing plates si! with the cities of Eufaula and Phenix City to prepare
naphtha, naphthalene, sulphate, field fence, barb wir front plans to realize the full potential of this water-
ties, staples, bolts and nuts, sheet and sheet roofin:
steel pipe.
(TWO PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED TO ORIGIN
lorence, Sheffield, and Tuscumbia are profiting from
nufacturing plants to supply materials for the armed
1. 1143] forces, Jocated in this section. ;
‘Anniston is a comparative newcomer to city planning
‘d the State Board has been working with them for about
ge year in the development of a Long Range Land Use
to provide excellent industrial sites, as well as com-
Lfol. 1142}
ALABAMA HAS PLANNED CITIES
City Planning and Industrial Development are
pariners i Alabama. For over fifteen years the St ; he Inter-State Highway network passes through oF
ee ae el ; ie = i anning and Industrial Develo, a considerable number of Alabama cities and the
el hee te nat ane oagialt of people to provide e Planning and Industrial Development Board is
city planning are evidenced | and towns. The resa tely aware of the tremendous potentials of Mises 28
Seas neni exes i ce ways, usually dustrial growth that this “Mainline” highway
in the City of Gadsden, Alabama, dtamatic evid
city planning is seen in its fine civie center which is
ing to completion, also in the new bridge under con
tion over the Coosa River which divides the city,
as the Major Traffic Artery which is being const: “ack
the new location to remove heavy traffic from the do
area.
ities in Alabama are engaged in planning
ut 23 projects involving the elimination of
45,000 slum dwellings Tocated on over 900
es of blighted land which will be redeveloped for sound
2 Over $10,000,000 in Federal funds will contribute to
consummation of these projects. Alabama cities are
one to take advantage of all facilities of the Urban Re-
In Dothan the four-lane circumferential thor | Administration, including College Housing, School
which completely circumseribes the city, provides.
1730
Construction, Advances for Public Works Planning,
Planning Assistance, and Urban Renewal itself.
September 31, 1957, Federal funds involved in suck
ects totaled $26,188,881,000.
The 3l4-acre Mobile shipyard of Alabama Dry Docks
A Shipbuilding Company enpley
ohani rs in its ew t
— a ioe depdocks have been steadily engaged
Be pet ith one of the heaviest work loads
ed. New construction includes
puilding a series of giant
ili ildi d and spe-
‘drilling barges—building standar 1
a ally designed barges, tenders, towboats and
E types of floating equipment.
e OLEN COMPANY established
WELVE years ago th i ;
epee in Mobile, Alabama. It consisted of two
ior department stores with great hopes of growth be-
e of the many resources of material,
ALABAMA NOW MAKES MAGNESIUM
Long a producer of heavy metals such as iron and
Alabama now has become a producer of industry’s If
metal product—magnesium. The Alabama Metallu
[fol. 1144] Corporation has just completed constru
a $7 million magnesium plant on a 480-acre site
on the Alabama River, near Selma, Alabama.
Within a proposed one million doilar yearly payre!
new plant will have a rated annual production cap:
high purity magnesium of 10,000 tons, adding abou!
to U.S. Total magnesium production. The raw
used is Alabama dolomite rock, one of Alabama’s
natural resources, which when tested was found to b
cellent in all respects” for magnesium production. kets in this area. 119 junior
BDeE Pe Z MPAD sists 0: jun
reasons for locating in Alabama, according to Board SLODAY the OLEN arian see in the South. It is one
man E. Howard Perkins of Detroit, were “(1) mild tment stores In eis” ‘ oare a and has been eminently
which lowers construction costs and permits uniform the largest chains in 1ts
J ; nities. Our
tion conditions, (2) low cost fuel in the form of n ssful in serving the pene Oe commu:
gas, (3) a large supply of available labor and (4) pi gation is to continue: 2 s Atay
of the Alabama River being made navigable to that ket that has resulted trom
in the future.” rial progress. a aw
The use of magnesium in industry is increasing rap ALABAMA is our headquarters and our hones as x
It is the lightest structural material, weighing only Eoves forward to greater prominence among e ro
two-thirds as much as aluminum. It is silvery wi pur nation, we will eontinue to contribute in me:
color. Magnesium is used in production of airborn e expanding horizons.
other portable equipment, aircraft, electronics; alse OLEN COMPANY, INC.
reducing agent in metallurgical processes, including TH Mobile, Alabama
tion of uranium, titanium and zirconium; also as a ¢ BOE SOUTH
to give cathodic protection for other metals such SERVING THE HEART OF THE
and steel.
SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR
Mobile has two shipbuilding and ship repair pk
Mobile Ship Repair Company and Alabama Dry Dod
Shipbuilding Company. At Birmingham and Sh
8 : EES
AMA INDUSTRIAL BOARD iS}
ALAS PROMISING OUTLOOK
strial development has been great,
pane eT ent is flourishing, but her
present industrial developm:
Lio
- struction as soon
future industrial development prospects stretch even a ity of aL ae ae approved for consi j
imagination. on tie UO! * «3 be- ‘
In the first 7 months of 1957, 58 new manufactaeg ‘Mabama’s industrial suaty looks brighter then ever
plants and warehouses were built in Alabama and 47: Come and grow with us.
ing plants expanded their operations.
Alabama is the geographical heart of the South,
exist in plentiful supply the basic things which ind
needs—the factors which give an industrial operat
new profit commensurate with its activities. Dive
natural resources of the South equal or excell any
{fol. 1146] region in the United States. From Ni
storeroom the South offers 70% of the nation’s petrel j No. 273 (Continued)
80% of all natural gas, 61% of navigable waterways, 3 Pramvner’s Exuisrr No f _
of all potential water power east of the Rocky mo THE NATIONALLY KNOW}
22% of all the coal, 75% of all the graphite, 40% o! 7 ERE ee MAJOR OPERATIONS IN
phosphate rock, 100% of all bauxite, and an ample si 4 mus "AMA—-GOOD COMPANY FOR ANY
of surface and underground water. DO nie
In all the South, ‘Alabama ranks first in producti 3 INDUSTRY,
Enerican Brake Shoe Company
primary metals with an increase 1939-1956 of 435%
compared with an U.S. inerease of 357% for the erican Cast Iron Pipe Company
period. Alabama ranks first in the South in produ ondale Mills . 45
durable goods, with a 1936-1956 increase of 517%, ett Division, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation
pared with the U. S. increase of 527%. Alabama’s in ne Mills Corporation, Dwight Division
of 527% in all manufacturing in 1939-1956 in prod
of non-durable goods was 489%.
The most reliable criterion of the future is the past.
1146a] Reporter’s and Clerks’ Certificate to forego-
hibits (omitted in printing).
In Cmcurr Court or Montcomeny County, ALABAMA
pbama’s total business volume (GAP—Gross Alabama FP gy ¥
increased 439% from 1939 through 1955, it was $1,93: peral Electric Company
¥. Goodrich Tire Company
e Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
ercules Powder Company
ternational Paper Company,
berly-Clark Corporation,
Newsprint Company ;
athon Southern Corporation —
finnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company
lion in 1939 and increased to $10,426 million in 1955,
Recognized experts in industrial development fo
for the five-year period of 1957-1961, location in A
of 165 new industrial and manufacturing plants, at
vestment of over $801 millions with an annual payre
will exceed $152 million per year.
A $7 million magnesium plant has just been bu
central Alabama. It will have a payroll of $1 million y a
An Alabama-Mississippi Compact has been org onto Chemical Company
promote the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterwa: jonal Cement Company
port of Mobile with the inland ports of the Mid-Ws ional Gypsum Company
far north as Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Mizyagas
olis. Five new hydroelectric dams with an ultin
Southern Kraft Division
operating the Coosa River
eee
bed
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation piol. 1149] ERS
H. K. Porter Company, Ine. Connors Steel Division : 41 YEARS SERVING SHIP OWNER
Refractories Division i
Pepperell Manufacturing Company ae
Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company
Republic Steel Corporation
Russell Manufacturing Company
Scott Paper Company, Hollingsworth and Whitney D:
U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company
United States Steel Corporation, Tennessee Coal and
Division
Universal Atlas Cement Company
[fol. 1148] Westinghouse Electric Corporation
West Point Manufacturing Company
ALABAMA DRY DOCK AND
SHIPBUILDING COMPANY
PORT OF MOBILE (U. 8. A) 2
Cable Address: P.O. Box 190 HE 2-882:
They and many others, in Alabama and nearby sé
provide a large market for many products—indus
commercial and consumer. Why are these and other i
tries located in Alabama? There are a variety of re
Among the principal ones are—
A diversity of natural resources; an abundance of ff
water; accessibility to large segments of the national
ket via railway, highway, waterway and airway; e
port facilities for export and import; a worker po
excelled in adaptability to new skills and processes,
Our new Industries Department gladly will suppl:
ies which may be helpful to you in reaching a decisi
establish a manufacturing, sales or distributing o;
in Alabama. You may inquire directly or through
plant location counsel. In either event all commu:
and discussions will be confidential.
Even though your interest is merely exploratory, ¥
be glad to hear from you.
YOU'RE IN GOOD COMPANY
WHEN YOUR PLANT’S IN ALABAMA
New Industries Department | 1. 1150] EXTILE INDUSTRY GROWING
' 7 ALABAMA T. i
Se ee ANY extile manufacturing is Alabama’s largest non-durable
s industry. In spite of the boll weevil and the fact that
(TWO PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED TO ORIGIS
FFERING A HELPING HAND IN
° BUSINESS SINCH 1889
(ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
HE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FLORENCE
s a cordial invitation to look over our
em munity. ee leading financial institution in Gar area,
Bare prepared to offer every assistance to any one
Edering the Florence area as an sndusiria sites exit oar
Our extensive knowledge of local con fons pee
plete banking and trust facilities are at your disposal.
: NATIONAL BANK OF FLORENCE
— FIRST SLORENCE, ALABAMA
ORGANIZED 1889
MEMBER FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION
ma has rex ic re an industrial
aba has changed from an agricultur al to an indu
nom, ‘labama’s cotton production and consumption by
Ys
ead
voll over $545 million. Farmers and
lued at w :
ee atees exceed 302,000. They operate 65,175 trac.
5 have
d piles. Over 155 thousand farms
3 2 SS "98 thousand have telephones, 68
if i vi iped into the house.
Fant ooo 1937 included. HALB00) caties
140,000 horses and mules. Uat-
orb was 431,805,000 pounds with eash
timated at more than $54 million. Es-
s for hogs was $35 million, sheep $971
Alabama textile mills has almost doubled in the
years.
Alabama now has 111 textile manufacturing esta
ments, which employ 48,000 people, with an annual pai
of $109 million, and ranks fourth in the United Stai
textile production. The industry’s annual income is
million and its annual output is valued at $496 m
The annual production of Alabama’s textile indus
more than double the annual output of the State’s
industry, its nearest non-durable goods competitor.
Approximately 32% of Alabama’s harvested crop! duction perhaps is the fastest
used for cotton growing, with a 1956 annual yield o ypama agriculture. There were over
pounds of cotton lint per acre. The total farm produ i phase of Ala oa nee ‘Alabama in 1955, rank-
of cotton in 1956 was approximately 750,000 bales, ¥: million broilers pro ae roduction in the United
at approximately $123 million. Alabama sixth beeenweat? 34. The increase in the
Alabama, grows cotton, spins cotton and exports ¢ tes. Alabama ranked nin’
through the port of Mobile. However, the Alabama
industry, both fabric and garmet, is concerned about
eign competition during recent years from imported
tile goods. Textile industry leaders in Alabama have o!
time organized to correct this United States foreign
policy by restricting imports to products American n
Importing textiles just because America exports eo
permits unfair competition from foreign countries ¥
have lower standards of living and lower wage levels :
the standard of wages in the United States. ol. 68) cnairk FERTILE RETAIL FIELD
(ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGL With an increased per eapita income, Alabama retail
mae sown aang neon in Pes been
wer i etail developm
neo ae chain of BATS in small Alabama oe
= The Olen Company. Within twelve fe crecalon a0
til i uuccessiuly ry
N; has expanded Mjabama and adjomming states, with
dquarters in Mobile. Chiefly oo a fee on
: 5 thousand, The
: ee ae orate me OF ine within price ranges that
attract the largest number of customers.
1 1956 crops were cotton (750,000
7 million bushels), peanuts (225 million Tbs.),
Bay, soybeans. Trish potatoes, sweet potatoes, pecans.
> 2
: (ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
[fol. 1151]
ALABAMA AGRICULTURE HELPED BY
INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Agriculture is not considered an industrial opere
but agricultural products are the basic raw mate
many Alabama industries. Due to mechanization of
bama farms and the transition from cotton to liv
more Alabama workers are available for industrial enn
ment.
There are 175,956 farms in Alabama valued at an a
of $6,208 per farm. Estimated total farm produe’
atv
957 PER CAPITA INCOME GAIN LEADS NATION
Alabama geographically is the heart of the South, and
amazing economic growth of the South, plus Alabama’s
natural resources, has placed Alabama in the front of i
suthern industrial expansion. Tn 1957 Alabama lead the rid
Sation with estimated annual income gain over 1956 at 6.6 i
eent. From 1939 through 1955, Alabama’s annual vol-
ime of industrial and commercial enterprise increased over ip
INDUSTRIAL ADVERTISING “SINCE 1998"
YOU MAKE IT—
WELL HELP YOU SE
. Y ILL IT!
Shee & DOUCE COMPANY, INC.
cal, Regional and National Advertising and
1316 Brown-M. hg ine an
-Marx Building Tel. Aupine 1-
Birmingham, ‘Alabama hue
Jo.
Alabama’s natural resources include great deposits of
ron ore, coal and limestone; abundant water supply, hhydro-
Wectrie power, natural gas, jdeal climate; the best inland
terways system in the U.S., the modern port of Mobile;
docks, modern highways, airways and railroads. Ala-
ma is the heavy industry State of the South with blast !
naces, foundries and steel mills. Alabama is rich in
oductive farms and livestock ranches, and is the South’s
remost timber region, producing lumber and wood pulp.
ASK FOR DETAIL INFORMATION
Our industrial development experts and technicians will
glad to give you pasic information regarding Alabama’s
‘ol. 1154] industrial potentials, eommunity financing, build-
and sites (including many Jocations now available on
gable Alabama rivers). Inquiries invited and handled
MONT
dim «+. growing community with
aan ges for the location of manufacturi sto
stribution outlets ... for additional catontntiod or
MEN OF MONTGOME,
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
of
montgomery chamber of commerce
[fol. 1153]
ALABAMA DRAWS. INDUSTRY LIKE. A MAG
Labor, Agriculture, Ai
ae e Airways. i .
a ny YS; Minerals, Beirne cee leet F
ays, Water-Domestie, Water-Industrial, ” imber, Wi
ALABAMA— . :
hae ere va the “Industrial Area” of the new Soul
Tn ‘Ale bama ny eee to an industrial econ strict confidence.
> e :
ustrial wat cgeenn SEW rials ° .
taxes, climate Heanepgrietion: navigable watcrrays; | . ALABAMA STATE PLANNING AND
mat Dn NT ase nes SRT EVE Foe, Governor
oney, Direc’ 5
State Capitol, Montgomery, Alabama ,
Today the South leads i
‘ EG h leads the N. i
ing expansion, In 1956, 1,060 new monehootenne
acturing p (DRAWINGS ATTACHED TO ORIGINAL.)
were built in the South—a E
. —approximatel:
feel art oe Ut Sov a bl
vo 5 . y.
Nation’s times have 30 per cent 6 1.1155] GROWING WITH ALABAMA
. Acrilan production at this Chemstrand Decatur plant has
wed steadily forward with Alabama’s own industrial
owth. As a result of establishing new standards of qual-
26a
NORTH ALABAMA GIVES YOU ALL
Xe OF THESE ADVANTAGES
industrious personnel.
ction into entire
ity in man-made fibers, Acrilan, the acrylic fibre by
strand, is being widely and successfully used in an
broadening range of products . . . from the softest
fabrics for women’s fashions to luxurious carpeting
equalled resilience.
© Abundant source of adaptable,
| Tennessee River sites affording conne
§, Inland Waterways System.
ow Tax structure with special inducements to new in-
ACRILAN
(ONE PHOTOGRAPH ATTACHED TO ORIGIN
deal, economical rates.
ries.
2 i lectric power at i vical ré ,
Speers search facilities in the South- i
Highest concentration of res
[fol. 1156]
LOCATE IN NORTH ALABAMA AND YOU'LL
PEOPLE, POWER, TRANSPORTATION ANE:
NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE
TENNESSEE RIVER VALLEY
You'll find a wealth of industrial advantages in
1.1157] Smooth running school system with high stand-
of scholarship. _
Coal available, delivered, at 21¢ per ynillion btu’s. :
Served by five mainline railroads; Southern and L&N;
d by two airlines: Hastern and Capital.
Finest machine shop facilities in the Southeast.
Alabama. Personnel, for example. Just recently a Top recreational facilities, water sports, boating, fishing,
locating here needed 300 employees to complete the aes ear around golf. os
They received 3,800 applications from alert, aday Bonthtul and delightful climate. ey
people who are proud of owning homes and who like uF oo
questions and for special
a i ers to your
aie aeanes eds, address: T. D. JOHN-
jobs. North Alabama is scientific minded, too. This
contains the greatest concentration of private and g dies ue A cams ne da
mental research facilities in the entire Southeast. ON, D. if
Many choice industrial sites arc still available ale NORTH ALABAMS ae; fe
Tennessee River. Here you have a minimum 9 foot eh 3 Decatur, Alebama i
connecting into the entire Inland Waterways Sys! ate e
the United States. Two main line railroads, the So © (ONE DRAWING ATTACHED BOND RRGLIAE) q
Railway System and the Louisville and Nashville, se
area. And you have two top airlines: Eastern and Capi 1158]
Power is here to meet whatever needs you have. : Sh NATIONALLY KNOWN COMPANIES HAVE
will enjoy very favorable rates, with a capacity of LOCATED IN NORTH ALABAMA
10 million kw. If you need coal, you can get it delivered
at 21¢ per million btu’s.
Taxes in North Alabama are scheduled to favor ne
dustry, and this policy applies to state, county and
assessment structures. Truly, here is a region that
a rare combination of fine locations considerations
dustries concerned with electronics, electrochemicals,
ment, grain elevators, feed mills, sub-assemblies, toys,
building, furniture and metals ... and many others. %
hn Blue—Burlington
Sslumet & Hecla—Chemstrand .
atur Iron & Steel
ond Alkali—Flagg-Utica :
1742
Julius Kayser
King Edward Cigars
M. Lowenstein & Sons
Lumber Fabricators
P.R. Mallory
Mallory-Schwarzkopf
Martin Stamping
National Distillers—Norton
National Poo] Equipment
Olin Mathieson—Quaker Oats
Ralston—Purina
Reynolds Metals
Robbins Floor Products
Rohm & Haas
Southern Sash
Stvlon—Thiokol
Union Carbide & Carbon
Worthington
[fol. 1159
i
THE NEW YORK TIMES FEBRUARY 2, 1958)
SECTH
Advertisement
A REPORT ON ALABAMA FO.
INDUSTRIAL BEECUTIVES.
(PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED TO ORIGINA
§. 1160]
Cmovir Court or MontcoMERy County, ALABAMA
Pramrire’s Exuzsrr No. 274
THE NEW YORK TIMES
TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK 16 N-Y.
LAckawanna 4-1000
; September 9, 1957
alph Silver
er & Douce Oo., Inc.
18 Brown-Marx Bldg.
ingham, Alabama
PThis will serve as a memorandum describing generally
terms and conditions under which we agree to pay
advertising agency Silver & Douce Company, Inc.,
onnection with the publication of a special
avure section (New York Times Maga-
size) for the State of Alabama on Sunday, February
Providing that the sale of acceptable advertising is
cient to finance a rotogravure section for the State of
ma and that the section is published as part of The
York Times on Sunday, February 2, 1958 (minimum
216 pages), The New York Times agrees to pay @ fee
$2,000 to Silver & Douce Company, Ine. Silver & Douce
mpany, Ine. will furnish The New York Times with all
E the necessary reading matter and yeading matter lay-
photographs and art work, and will assist generally
ithe sale of advertising for this section. This sum also
des compensation (travel and living expenses) for a
to New York for a period of at least three days in
+ to handle the final editing, make-up adjustments,
when the section is ready for release to the printer.
Ehiect to change, this supplement will be made ready
the period of Monday, December 16, through
esday, December 18.
144s
Costs for various sized units:
850 lines (170 lines by 5 columns) $4500
510 lines (170 lines by 3 columns) 2700
lines (85 lines by 5 —
nes (170 lines by 1 column) 900
' by 1 column) 450
2. Silver & Douce Company, Inc. agrees to deli
material ready for processing on or before Monday, Full page
ber 9, 1957. 5 page—
3. Since this section is to be printed in roto; pol. 1162] Half page — 425
[fol. 1161] there will be no engraving charges. He a columns) .
it is imperative that we receive original art work and (Fall column — 170 at L
plete pencil layouts for all pages, whether they ‘Half column —85 lines (85 line:
regular advertising, reading matter, or a combinatis
both. Original manuseript copy of the reading ms
received by us not later than November 25 can be
type and returned to you by December 2, which
used as a guide when preparing the layouts.
4, All layouts should occupy space areas as &
below:
Full page announcements — 170 lines by 9 3/4 inch
{-eolumn announcements— 170 lines by 13/16 incl
2eolumm advertisements— 170 lines by 3 18/16
Z-eolumn advertisements— 170 lines by 5 3/4 i
4eolumn advertisements— 170 lines by 7 3/4 i
1/2 page vertical — 85 lines by 9 3/4 i
icipati at ith The
i articipating advertiser has a contract wil
York ‘Times, he will be allowed his eontract rate for
display advertising. Reading matter charged to his
be computed at the open rate.
vent the volume of advertising sold justified
selon at 30 5 the cost per unit of advertising as
in the same. This assumes the same
Eoportion of reading matter and display advertising as
scribed above.
All conditions and special requir
enclosed Rate Card No. 64 will app
carried in this section.
: i i Jy advised
9. It is agreed that you will keep us regular’
eeliganents jn connection with the State of Alabama
ion.
: i iginal and
our signature at the pottom of both the origin:
licate of this letter will serve as an indication of general
ment. Please return poth copies at your earliest con-
jence. The duplicate will then be returned to you,
niersigned, for your files.
ACCEPTED:
ements outlined in
ly for all advertis-
5. The cost of an all-advertising 16 page section p
in rotogravure is approximately $44,000. If color is
$710 must be added for each color unit and a minim
6 color units must be utilized. In order to pro
“eushion” to cover possible unforeseen expenses, su
retouching a photograph, art work, ete., we sug:
estimated total price of $45,000 for a 16-page black
white section.
6. On the basis of approximately one-third re
matter to two-thirds advertising, this would mean, forg
page section (a total of 80 columns), 28 columns de
to reading matter and 52 columns devoted to display
vertising. Since the advertiser pays for the cost
regular advertising plus a pro-rata for the reading x
this would mean that the 52 columns of regular advel
would carry the cost of the entire section.
On this basis each column advertisement, includit
pro-rate for the reading matter, would cost $900, or
per page.
/s/ Rawee Smiver
New York Tums Company
Josepn B. WAGNER
Joseph B. Wagner -
: “Ageistant National Advertising Manager
Sirver & Douce Company, Inc.
i idvecaeens ee
a ae ae
it
