Hurtin v. Hopkins
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action for a libel, published in the Orange County Gazelle. The publication was in the form of a letter ad¿resse¿ [0 Col.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action for a libel, published in the Orange County Gazelle. The publication was in the form of a letter ad¿resse¿ [0 Col. G. D. Wickham, as follows : “ You may consider it presumption in a citizen, in the common walks of life, to assume to himself the right of investigating the interest and zeal you mani^ted in procuring the appointment of John G. Hurt in, (the plaintiff) to the office of sheriff of the county of Orange, to the exclusion of a great number of gentlemen of respectability, as well for character as talents, belonging to the federal party in this county. •Your ambition…
1Per curiam
The general rule is not to grant a new trial, in actions of this nature, when the verdict is for the defendant, and there is no other ground for the motion than that the jury have misunderstood or disregarded the evidence. This was the doctrine of the court in Jarvis v. Hatheway. (3 Johns. Rep. 180.) In penal actions, the rule has been established by a series of cases; (Str. 899. 1236. 3 Wils. 59. 10 East, 268.) and though actions for defamation, and for malicious prosecution, are not actions for penalties, yet they are penal in their nature; and, in respect to the doctrine of new trials,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ex parte BailyNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Fleming v. BrauerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Sebring v. UnderhillNew York Supreme Court · 1926
- Engel v. New York Evening Post Co.New York Supreme Court · 1902
- Wheeler v. CalkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.