Shipp v. Story
| Decision Date | 30 September 1881 |
| Parties | Shipp. vs. Story. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Libel. New Trial. Practice in Supreme Court. Before Judge Willis. Marion Superior Court. April Term, 1881.
Reported in the decision.
E. M. Butt; Cary J. Thornton, for plaintiff in error.
Blandford & Garrard, for defendant.
John Q. Shipp brought his action for libel against B. A. Story, for publishing of and concerning him the following article in the Buena Vista Argus, a newspaper in the town of Buena Vista, in this state:
The defendant filed two pleas—the first "not guilty, " the second "justification."
Under the evidence and charge of the court, the jury found a verdict for the defendant on the first plea. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which the court refused, and he excepted. The grounds of the motion were,
(1.) Because the verdict is contrary to evidence, and without evidence to support it.
(2.) Because the verdict is so far contrary to evidence as to shock the moral sense.
(3.) Because the verdict is contrary to law.
1. The plea of justification, and the evidence in the record, puts the matter out of all dispute that the publication was the act of the defendant. Also, that the libel charged a crime, and that malice was thereby implied. The existence of malice may be rebutted by proof, and when done, it will go in mitigation of damages, but will not be a bar to a recovery. The finding of the jury, therefore, in this case, for the defendant on the first plea, was contrary to evidence, and without evidence to support it.
Had the presumption of malice been rebutted by the evidence, the verdict should not have been for the defendant; it was, therefore, error to allow it to stand. Had it been on the second plea, then that would have been sufficient.
2. It appeared in this case that there were exceptions taken to the rulings of the judge upon the trial below, which were not embraced in the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and it was moved by counsel for defendant in error that the plaintiff in error be confined to such exceptions alone as were contained in the motion for a new trial.
There has been no ruling by this court upon this ques-tion that we are aware of, but we do not hesitate to say that such a practice as this is irregular, if not illegal. If the party has a right to separate exceptions in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepard v. Brewer
...Evidence of the motive or intent of the defendant in speaking the defamatory words is inadmissible. Buckstaff v. Hicks, 94 Wis. 34; Shipp v. Story, 68 Ga. 47; Rearick Wilcox, 81 Ill. 77. (3) The fifth instruction given at the request of the defendant is clearly error, and directly in the fa......
-
Atlanta Post Co. v. McHenry
...from the character of the charge, and that, should its existence be rebutted, such proof shall go in mitigation of damages. Shipp v. Story, 68 Ga. 47. court did not err in rejecting testimony offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing the absence of special damages. In an action fo......
-
Crawford v. Wilson
...it by setting up, in a bill of exceptions pendente lite, additional grounds which ought to have been included in it but were not. Shipp v. Story, 68 Ga. 47 (2); Wright v. Georgia Railroad, etc., Co., 34 Ga. 330, and see remarks on page 335; Clay v. Smith, 108 Ga. 189 (2), 33 S. E. 963; HiU ......
-
Crawford v. Wilson
...it by setting up, in a bill of exceptions pendente lite, additional grounds which ought to have been included in it but were not. Shipp v. Story, 68 Ga. 47 (2); Wright v. Georgia Railroad, etc., Co., 34 Ga. and see remarks on page 335; Clay v. Smith, 108 Ga. 189 (2), 33 S.E. 963; Hill v. St......