¶1(after stating the facts). Counsel for the plaintiffs rely upon the case of Murray v. Galbraith, reported in 86 Ark. 50, and in 95 Ark. 199.
¶2We do not think that case applies. There the publication in express words charged the commissioners of an improvement district with an overcharge of $7,000 in the purchase of gravel, and stated that the improvement district was not the only páving district formed in Pine Bluff that was boodled.
¶3In ascertaining the meaning of written words to determine whether or not they are libelous, the entire article must be construed. The general rule is also that the words are to be taken in their plain and natural meaning and to be understood by courts and juries as other people would understand them, and according to the sense in which they appear to have been used and the ideas they are adapted to convey to those who read them. Skaggs v. Johnson, 105 Ark. 254. Hence it was necessary to set out the whole of the published article, although it is very long and is rambling in character.
¶4By giving to the words used in the published article their most natural and obvious meaning and by giving to them that meaning which would most naturally be ascribed-thereto by those who would read the articles, we do not think the publication is libelous per se. ■ The natural and ordinary construction that would be placed upon the article would be that the plaintiffs and defendant had belonged to the same business firm and had had differences about the way the business should be carried on and as to their rights under certain contracts with each other. The article does not impute dishonesty to the plaintiffs nor does it accuse them of any misconduct in the business that would tend to impeach their integrity or veracity. The article sets forth somewhat in detail the differences between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and it is rather argumentative in character. The publication • seems to have been an effort on the part of the defendant to state the various transactions had between himself and the plaintiffs and to show that he was right in the whole matter.
¶5He does state specifically that he had not done well in investing in the business with the plaintiffs, but he does not accuse them of any actual dishonesty. He does state what his amount of the profits in the business should have been and that he was only paid a part of this amount. He states he was given a check for $1,000 with the promise to pay more as soon as sufficient collections could be made. He made several efforts to learn about the collections and they told him that they had been unable to collect the debts.
¶6King also questioned the right of the plaintiffs to establish a feed business and take that line of business out of the partnership; but he does not accuse the plaintiffs of any actual fraud or dishonesty in that respect. It is true that the defendant, King, also stated in the article that the plaintiffs had attempted to put off land notes on him that represented $1,500 with only about $900 to secure their payment. He does not charge them, however, with fraud or dishonesty in this respect. The notes may have been good without any security at all.
¶7The article does charge the plaintiffs with bad management, especially in the making and collecting of the debts of the concern; but there is no imputation of dishonesty or misconduct in the business charged against the plaintiffs. The publication cannot be construed to accuse the plaintiffs of doing anything in connection with the business that they did not have a legal right to do under the contract as construed by them. There are no facts alleged to connect the publication with any transaction by which the court could say that the publication is libelous per se.
¶8We must therefore conclude that the complaint does not state a cause of action, and that the trial court committed no error in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.
¶9The judgment will therefore be affirmed.