· 3/31/1906

Todd v. East Liverpool Publishing. Co.

Citations

  • 19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 155
  • 9 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 249
  • 1906 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 270

Syllabus

<p>LIBEL AND SLANDER.</p> <p>Cook, Burrows and Baubie, JJ.</p> <p>1. Admissibility of Proof of Facts Admitted in Pleadings.</p> <p>In an action for libel, the falsity of the charge being admitted in the . answer, if the plaintiff introduces evidence to prove such falsity, it is discretionary with the court whether evidence on this point can be introduced by the defendant and its introduction will not be prejudicial where the court does not submit to the jury the truth of such charge as a defense.</p> <p>LFor other cases in point, see 4 Cyc. Dig., “Error,” §§ 1647-1666.- — Ed.]</p> <p>2. Necessity of Excepting to Instbuctions to Jury.</p> <p>There being a complete record of the entire proceedings below, and the verdict being apparently the result of erroneous instructions, no exceptions need be taken to such instructions to consider them on error to determine whether the verdict is contrary to law. ^</p> <p>LFor other cases in point, see 2 Cyc. Dig., “Charge to Jury,” §§ 609-657.— Ed.J</p> <p>3. Charges Libelous Per Se.</p> <p>A newspaper publication in effect charging a policeman with having taken $40 from a person arrested by him, and secreting and refusing to account for the same, charges him with having committed a crime involving moral turpitude and is libelous per se.</p> <p>LFor other cases in point, see 5 Cyc. Dig., “Libel and Slander,” .§§ 1-82.— Ed.J</p> <p>4. Repetition of a Charge as a Libel.</p> <p>A libelous article does not cease to be a libel because the party charged simply repeated what some other person told him or that he heard some other person say. » v ,</p> <p>5. Questions fob Court and Jury in Action fob Libel.</p> <p>In such action it is the duty of the court to instruct the jury that the charge made is actionable per se. It is for the jury to determine whether . the meaning ascribed to the charge by the innuendo was intended by the defendant; this, however, affects only the amount of damages and not the right of recovery.</p> <p>LFor other c

Judges: Burrows, Cook, Laubie

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.