Pickford v. Talbott
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OE APPEARS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The cross-examination of the plaintiff was being properly conducted when interrupted by the court. The “good faith” of the defendant in error in procuring the Rockville indictment went to the very heart of the action.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OE APPEARS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The cross-examination of the plaintiff was being properly conducted when interrupted by the court. The “good faith” of the defendant in error in procuring the Rockville indictment went to the very heart of the action. If it could have been made to appear by the admissions of the witness, testifying in his own behalf, that while State’s attorney he was in league with the man Hudson and the insurance companies, in a scheme which his predecessor denominated “blackmailing,” the jury would have made…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna
■ This is an. action for libel brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, -The plaintiff in the action, défend-ant in error here, secured a verdict for $8,500, upon which judgment was entered. It was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 28 App. D. C. 498.
The facts are set out at some length in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and need not be repeated. It is enough to say that defendant in error Talbott was, at the time of the publication of the libel, State’s attorney for the county of Montgomery, in the State of Maryland. During his incumbency of that office an indictment was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pickford v. TalbottSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Talbott v. PickfordCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1911
- Weber v. RuschSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926