Skip to main content
· 7/25/1901

Goebeler v. Wilhelm

Citations

  • 17 Pa. Super. 432
  • 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 333

Syllabus

<p>Libel — Meaning of words — Innuendo—Question for jury.</p> <p>If words are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning as well as an innocent one, the plaintiff may by an innuendo ascribe the former meaning to them, and it will be for the jury to decide whether such meaning is truly ascribed to them; but the quality of an alleged libel, as it stands upon the record, either simply or as explained by averments and innuendo, is purely a question of law for the court, and in civil cases the court is bound to instruct the jury as to whether the publication is libelous, supposing the innuendoes to be true.</p> <p>A speaker or writer is accountable for the import of his words as they will naturally be understood by the hearer or reader. The test of his liability in a civil action is not what was his secret intent, but what is the meaning of his words.</p> <p>Libel — Damages—Punitive damages — Constitutional law.</p> <p>Punitive or vindictive damages were recoverable prior to the Act of July 1, 1897, P. L. 204, in civil actions for libel, and they were given by way of punishment and with a view to promote the peace and quiet of Society. In giving such damages the law blended together the interest of society and of the aggrieved individual, and gave damages not only to recompense the sufferer but to punish the offender.</p> <p>The Act of July 1, 1897, P. L. 204, which provides that “ in no civil action for libel shall damages be awarded beyond just restitution for injury actually sustained,” was intended to prohibit the allowance of vindictive, punitive or exemplary damages or smart money, and it does not infringe any constitutional right of a party who has been injured by a libelous publication.</p> <p>Constitutional law — Title of act — Libel—Act of July 1, 1897, P. L. 204.</p> <p>Where a general title sufficient to cover all the provisions of an act is followed by specifications of the particular branches of the subject with which it proposes to deal, the scope of t

Judges: Beaver, Orlady, Porter, Rice

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.