Krug v. Pitass
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, John Pitass and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 29th day of May, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury for $6,250, and also from an order entered.in said clerk’s office on the 10th day of June, 1896, denying the defendants’ motion for a new'trial made upon the minutes.
1Opinion of the Court
Hardin, P. J.:
It seems the article published was libelous per se. (Cruikshank v. Gordon, 118 N. Y. 178; S. C., 23 N. E. Rep. 457; Secor v. Harris, 18 Barb. 425; Carroll v. White, 33 id. 616.)(2) The defendants gave evidence tending to show that they had no malice in the publication of the article To rebut that evidence plaintiff called Sullivan, who testified to a conversation with Pitass in 1890, which was objected to, and, in response to the objection, the the court observed: “ This is direct evidence on the question of malice.” To that ruling nó exception was taken. After some evidence was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bergmann v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Cruikshank v. . GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Secor v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Lee v. McLaughlinNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Liebman v. County of WestchesterNew York Supreme Court · 1972