Good v. Higgins

Citations

• 99 Kan. 315
• 161 P. 673

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Slander — Express and Implied Malice — Instructions. Instructions to a jury concerning express and implied malice examined and held sufficiently accurate and plain for the purpose of the cause under consideration.</p> <p>2. Same — Cause of Action Stated in Several Counts — No Finding of Amount under Each Separate Count Required. In an action for damages for slander, in which eight separate counts were pleaded setting forth different slanderous statements uttered by the defendant, it is held not to be reversible error for the trial court to refuse to submit a special question which asked how much damages the' jury allowed for each separate slander; and a general verdict for a reasonable sum is sufficient.</p> <p>3. Same — Want of Good Faith — Verdict Not Excessive. Where two persons are candidates for a public office, and one publicly proclaims the other to be a “thief,” an “embezzler,” “dishonest,” “crooked,” and the like, and the jury specially find that such statements were not made in good faith, a verdict awarding damages in the sum of $1500 to the slandered person can not be disturbed as excessive.</p> <p>4. Same — Slanderous' Words — Justification—Candidate for Office.. Before such statements concerning a candidate for office con be justified or excused as privileged, it must be shown that they were uttered in good faith, in the sincere belief of their truth, and with good reason to believe that they were true, and that they were uttered in an honest endeavor to lay the facts before the electors as to the real fitness of the candidate who sought their suffrages. (Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711, 98 Pac. 281.)</p>