Mengel v. Reading Eagle Co.

Citations

• 241 Pa. 367
• 88 A. 660
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 793

Syllabus

<p>Libel — Libel per se — Libel by innuendo — Province of court and jury — Libelous matter in judicial proceedings — Privileged publication — Evidence—Mitigation of damages.</p> <p>1. Written words injurious to one in his business, calling, trade, or profession are libelous, and if the common understanding of mankind applies a libelous meaning to them, they are to be so construed as a matter of law; if, however, the words are of dubious import, or are not in themselves libelous, but their meaning is averred by innuendo, it is for the court in civil cases to instruct the jury whether they are libelous, assuming the innuendo to be true; it is for the jury to say whether they were used in the sense ascribed to them by innuendo.</p> <p>2. Proceedings in courts of justice, as taken from the public records, may be freely printed and published, even though libelous, without subjecting the publisher to liability for injuries caused thereby.</p> <p>3. Where, in trespass for libel, it appeared that defendant’s newspaper had stated the plaintiffs, who were loan and investment agents, had induced an investor to invest $3,000 in a mortgage covering property assessed at only $1,750; — that plaintiffs had persuaded such investor to pledge the mortgage with a trust company as security for a loan of $1,625 which plaintiffs had negotiated for him; — that said investor “could secure no satisfaction” when he called on the day before the mortgage matured to arrange for the payment of the balance of the loan then desired by him; — that the mortgage was sold by the pledgee for $1,700; — that no benefit was derived by the investor from this investment, but he was charged six per cent, interest on the loan; — that an action for deceit had been brought; — and the following headline was printed to the article: — “Suit for Damages; Alleges Deceit.”— and plaintiffs averred the publication to be libelous per se and by innuendo, the court rightly refused to charge that the publication was libelou