Skip to main content
· 5/18/1886

Dixon v. Allen

Citations

  • 69 Cal. 527
  • 11 P. 179
  • 1886 Cal. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>Libel — Complaint—Privileged Communication. — In an action for libel, the complaint need not aver that the alleged libelous publication was not privileged.</p> <p>Id. —Presumptíon as to Falsity and Malice—Evidence. —When language is actionable, and it does not appear to be privileged, it is presumed to be both false and malicious, and no other evidence of falsehood or malice is necessary than the publication itself in order to establish a prima facie case for the plaintiff.</p> <p>Id. —Charging Pupil with Unwomanly Conduct—Words Actionable per Se. —The action was brought to recover damages for a libel. The plaintiff, at the time of the publication complained of, was a pupil in the State Normal School at San José, of which the defendant was the principal. The alleged libel consisted of a portion of a letter written by the defendant, and by him caused to be published in a newspaper, in which it was said of and concerning the plaintiff as such pupil that “by her conduct in class, by her behavior in and about the building, and by her spirit as exhibited in numberless personal interviews, she has shown herself tricky and unreliable, and almost entirely destitute of those womanly and honorable characteristics that should be the first requisites in a teacher.” The letter was written in reply to certain censorious articles that had appeared in the public press reflecting upon the faculty and management of the normal school in connection with their treatment of the plaintiff. Held, that the publication was actionable per se, and was not a privileged communication.</p> <p>Held further, that the language complained of was unambiguous, and that its meaning should not have been submitted to the jury.</p> <p>Id. —Evidence as to Family of Plaintiff. —On the trial, the mother of the plaintiff testified as to the number and ages of her children, the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff, and the death of her husband. Held, that the evidence was admissible.</p> <p>Id.—Undertaking

Judges: McKinstry

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.