[DOWNLOAD] "Campbell v. Post Publishing Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Campbell v. Post Publishing Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 25, 1933
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
Libel ? Newspapers ? Insufficiency of Complaint. Libel ? Complaint ? Construction of Words According to Usual Meaning. 1. Unless alleged defamatory words complained of in an action for libel are libelous per se, they cannot be made so by innuendo; they must be construed according to their usual, popular and natural meaning and common acceptation, that is, in the sense in which persons out of court and of ordinary intelligence would understand them. Same ? Newspaper Article ? How Words to be Viewed by Court. 2. A newspaper article claimed to have been libelous must be viewed by the court in its entirety as a stranger might look at it, without the aid of special knowledge possessed by the parties concerned. Same ? Libel Per Se ? When Publication Actionable. 3. In order to render a publication actionable per se, the language used therein must be susceptible of but one meaning and that an opprobrious one, and must on its face show that the derogatory statements, taken as a whole, refer to the plaintiff, and not to him or some other person. Same ? Complaint ? When Allegation of Special Damages Necessary to State Cause of Action. 4. Where an alleged libelous publication is not susceptible of an opprobrious meaning without the aid of far-fetched innuendo, damages are not recoverable unless plaintiff alleges and proves special damages. Same ? Case at Bar ? Insufficiency of Complaint. 5. Under the above rules, held, that the complaint in an action for libel alleging, in substance, that defendant publisher of a newspaper falsely published an item of the giving of a birthday surprise party in honor of a certain person not in being, and in this connection artfully connected the name of plaintiff, a married woman, with the name of a married man, not living with his wife but a roomer at plaintiffs rooming-house, meaning thereby that the two had intermarried, though already married, that they had committed the crime of bigamy and had been guilty of improper intimacy, etc., in the absence of pleading and proof of special damages did not state a cause of action.