Rearick v. Wilcox

Citations

• 81 Ill. 77

Syllabus

<p>1. Libel—malice, and right to damages. The law implies malice from the publication, of a libelous article, and the party defamed will be entitled to recover such compensatory damages as he has sustained, regardless of the intent that actuated the publisher of the libel.</p> <p>2. Same—evidence in mitigation of damages. It is proper for the defendant in a suit for libel to prove the facts and circumstances connected with the publication, to show the absence of malice in fact, and such evidence is competent on the question of exemplary damages, but not as affecting compensatory or actual damages, and the jury should be so instructed.</p> <p>3. Same—excitement of an election as affecting the damages. In an action for libel it is erroneous to instruct the jury that they may, in mitigation of damages, consider the excitement of an election leading to the publication, or the fact that the article was published for the sole purpose of defeating the plaintiff’s election.</p> <p>4. The fact that the defendant, as the proprietor of a newspaper, in publishing a libelous article against the plaintiff while a candidate for office, was actuated by what he believed to be for the public good, can not be taken and considered in mitigation of damages. An intention to serve the public good does not authorize a defamation of private character.</p>