Illinois Central Railroad v. Ely

Citations

• 83 Miss. 519

Syllabus

<p>1. Libel. Railroad employe. Discharge. Clearance paper. Burden of proof.</p> <p>A clearance paper given a discharged employe, at his request, reciting: “Cause for leaving service, unsatisfactory service, conduct good,” is not libelous per se, and the employe who sues upon it as a libel has the burden of proving that it is untrue, was known to be false and was published from malicious motives.</p> <p>S. Same. Evidence.</p> <p>In an action for libel by a discharged railroad employe, predicated of a clearance paper furnished him at his request, it is error to permit a witness to testify that the railroad company’s supervisor of tracks had said in witnesses presence that the road-master, who was a defendant to the suit, was going to have plaintiff discharged because he had testified adversely to the company in a law suit.</p> <p>3. Same. Incompetent evidence. Effect of its admission, and subsequent exclusion.</p> <p>Rirror in receiving incompetent evidence of malice in a libel suit, which was the only showing thereof, and which seemed likely to have induced the verdict, is not cured by the court’s telling the jury at the close of the case, after the evidence had remained with them over night, that, on reflection, it was improper proof, and to dismiss it from their minds.</p> <p>4. Same. Witness. Disregard of rule.</p> <p>Refusing to permit a witness to testify in rebuttal because he has disobeyed the rule for the exclusion and separation of witnesses, while permitting his testimony in chief to be contradicted, is error.</p>