Press Co. v. Stewart

Citations

• 119 Pa. 584
• 14 A. 51
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 579

Syllabus

<p>1. In a civil action for a libel, when the alleged libelous publication purported to be an account of an interview with the plaintiff and justification was pleaded, it was error to refuse to instruct the jury that if they believed that the article was a fair and true account of an interview •had, the verdict must be for the defendant.</p> <p>2. A communication, to be privileged, must be made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and based upon reasonable or probable cause; when so made in good faith, the law does not imply malice from the communication itself, as in the ordinary case of libel, but actual malice must be proved, and, whether the communication be privileged or not, is a question for the court, not the jury: Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 404.</p> <p>3. A plaintiff who holds himself out as a teacher and guide of youth, and seeks to attract them to his place by signs, placards and advertisements of an extraordinary nature, assumes a quasi public character; and, whether or not he is a proper person to instruct the young and his school a proper place therefor, are matters of importance for the information of the public.</p> <p>4. Wherefore, in such a cause, it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury that an article, in which such information is given to the public, is in such sense privileged that no presumption of malice arises from the mere fact of publication, and that malice in fact must be proved before the plaintiff can recover.</p>