Hosmer v. Loveland
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action for a libel. The complaint charged the defendant with composing and publishing of and concerning the plaintiff a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel, alleging the plaintiff’s character to be bad, and charging him with dishonesty and intemperance, and with being a gambler. The complaint set forth so much of the alleged libel as contained the above imputations, with the usual recitals and innuendos.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action for a libel. The complaint charged the defendant with composing and publishing of and concerning the plaintiff a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel, alleging the plaintiff’s character to be bad, and charging him with dishonesty and intemperance, and with being a gambler. The complaint set forth so much of the alleged libel as contained the above imputations, with the usual recitals and innuendos. The answer of the defendant did not deny composing and publishing the alleged libel, but stated the following facts as a defense : That, prior to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Welles, J.
Whether the paper containing the supposed libelous matter1, as shown by the pleadings and evidence, was a privileged communication, is a question of law. The referees have reported as matter of fact, that it was privileged. Whether treated as a question of law or fact is perhaps of little moment in this case, provided their decision be correct as matter of law; since there is no conflict in the evidence in relation to the occasion upon, and the circumstances under, which the paper was composed and published. If it was not privileged, the report was wrong, and the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- King v. RootCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- Howard v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Thorn v. BlanchardCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1809
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jarnigan v. FlemingMississippi Supreme Court · 1871
- McLaughlin v. CharlesNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- People ex rel. Kopel v. BinghamNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Eugene Boice, John Di Palermo, and Robert Wahrman v. Unisys CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Eugene Boice, John Di Palermo, and Robert Wahrman v. Unisys CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.