Zuckerman v. Sonnenschein

Citations

• 62 Ill. 115

Syllabus

<p>1. Slander—Malice. The law implies malice from the publication of actionable words, but this implication may be explained and rebutted by the circumstances.</p> <p>2. Same. In a suit for slander it is error to instruct the jury that if the defendant used words imputing a crime, they must find for plaintiff, when the words were spoken under circumstances tending to show a want of malice. In such case the intent of the publication should be left to the jury under the proof.</p> <p>3. Same—Malice. When words. imputing the commission of a crime are used by the defendant merely for the purpose of translating the language of another from the German into the English language at the request and for the information of an attorney at law in a matter of business, the law will not infer malice in the defendant. Under such circumstances the use of the words may properly come within the range of privileged communications. If there was malice in fact it must be left to the jury to be found from the evidence.</p>