Hatfield v. Gazette Printing Co.

Citations

• 103 Kan. 513
• 3 A.L.R. 1276
• 175 P. 382
• 1918 Kan. LEXIS 310

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Libel — Imputing Unchastity — Mistake of Publisher No Legal Excuse. A false charge in a publication that a woman, specifically named, is immoral and unchaste, constitutes a libel, and the fact that an honest mistake was made by the publisher in the use of plaintiff’s name is not a legal excuse, as the law looks to the tendency and consequences of a publication rather than to the intention of the publisher.</p> <p>2. Same — Identity of Party Libeled Sufficiently Shown. As the publication containing the charge of unchastity, and conceded to be false, specifically named the plaintiff as the wrongdoer, and as no one else of her name resided in the community, the provisions of section 126 of the civil code (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7018) did not apply, and formal proof that the defamatory matter was published of' the plaintiff was not necessary.</p> <p>3. Same — Libel per se — General Damages Inferred. General damages from such a false publication arise by inference of law and need not be proved.</p> <p>4. Same — Question of Damages for Jury. As no valid defense of the libel was made herein, the only question left for submission to the jury was the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff.</p> <p>5. Same — No Settlement Proven. Certain facts relied on by. the defendant are held not to constitute a settlement.</p>