Woodburn v. Miller
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
pefore Richardson, J. at Chester, Spring Term, 1840. Special action for malicious publication of a libel in the “ Times” newspaper of June 8, 1838. The publication was as follows: “ A little caution. A report has gone abroad, through the instrumentality of Samuel Woodburn, stating that Robert Miller, of Chester district, had in Columbia, on the 16th of February last, a load or parcel of falsely packed or plated cotton bales; which report is r direct falsehood.
Read the full summary
pefore Richardson, J. at Chester, Spring Term, 1840. Special action for malicious publication of a libel in the “ Times” newspaper of June 8, 1838. The publication was as follows: “ A little caution. A report has gone abroad, through the instrumentality of Samuel Woodburn, stating that Robert Miller, of Chester district, had in Columbia, on the 16th of February last, a load or parcel of falsely packed or plated cotton bales; which report is r direct falsehood. Said Miller had not a single bale of cotton in Columbia at or near that date, of any description whatever. Meddlers will take care how…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Evans, J.
I propose to consider and decide these questions:
1st. Was this a libel?
2d. Was the evidence sufficient to charge the defendant with the publication of it ?
3rd. Was it admissible for the plaintiff in reply, to shew that what he had stated of the defendant was true?
There are other grounds taken in the notice of appeal, but it is not thought that they are of such doubtful character as to require any opinion of this court upon them.-
1st. The plain and obvious meaning of this publication is, that the plaintiff had fabricated and ciiculated a falsehood about the defendant. Such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ross v. McGuffinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884