Aspell v. Smith

Citations

• 134 Pa. 59
• 19 A. 484
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 667

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. When, in an action for libel contained in a letter, the plaintiff testified that she was familiar with the defendant’s handwriting and that the letter was his, and it was identified as defendant’s letter by the person to whom it was addressed and admitted by the defendant to have been written by him, an objection to the sufficiency of the proofs cannot be sustained.</p> <p>2. In such action, when the libel complained of was contained entirely in the letter which was complete in itself, the envelope in which the letter was sent containing no part of the alleged libel, it was of no importance that the latter was admitted in evidence along with the letter without sufficient proof of its authenticity; the error, if any, was harmless.</p> <p>8. A specification alleging that the “judge erred in his charge to the jury that the letter was on its face per se libelous,” is not supported by a bill of exceptions which shows that the court did not so charge; moreover, being violative of Rule XXIII., the question whether the letter was libelous per se was not raised by the specification.</p>