Post Pub. Co. v. Butler

Citations

• 137 F. 723
• 14 Ohio F. Dec. 631
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4193

Syllabus

<p>1. Libel—Retraction—Statutes—Construction.</p> <p>Rev. St. Ohio, § 5094, declares that, if a libel shall be published in good faith through a mistake of fact, with reasonable ground to believe that the statements were true, and the publisher on demand, and within a reasonable time, publishes a full and complete retraction, etc., the presumption of malice should be thereby rebutted. Held, that under Const. Ohio, art. 1, § 16, declaring that all the courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his person or reputation, shall have a remedy by due course of law, and justice administered without denial or delay, section 5094 should be construed so as to become operative only upon a demand being made for a retraction; and it is optional with the person libeled to stand upon his rights under the old law, or to waive a part by demanding and accepting a retraction under the law as amended.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Libel and Slander, § 168.]</p> <p>2. Same—Instructions.</p> <p>A second publication, unrequested and in the nature of a correction, may be a proper circumstance to be considered by the jury in mitigation of damages in an action for libel; but its significance is entirely a question for the jury to determine.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent Dig. Libel and Slander, § 168.]</p> <p>3. Same—Evidence.</p> <p>Evidence as to the circumstances which induced a press association to send out a libelous telegram is immaterial, in an action brought by the party libeled against a newspaper which published the dispatch without knowledge of the circumstances of its origin.</p> <p>4. Same—Punitive Damages.</p> <p>Where a telegram, which grossly libels a woman widely and favorably known and who could have been easily reached, is published without inquiry as to the truth of the statements therein contained, it is for the jury to determine whether there was such a wanton disregard of the plaintiff’s ri