Burns v. Telegram Pub. Co.
Decision Date | 16 July 1915 |
Citation | 89 Conn. 549,94 A. 917 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | BURNS v. TELEGRAM PUB. CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Joseph P. Tuttle and Lucien F. Burpee, Judges.
Action by George Burns against the Telegram Publishing Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. No error.
David S. Day, of Bridgeport, for appellant. Thomas M. Cullman, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
This action was brought against the defendant to recover damages for the publication of an article in the Bridgeport Telegram, a newspaper published in the city of Bridgeport, in Fairfield county. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the sufficiency of the complaint, which was overruled. An answer was then filed, which admitted the publication of the article and denied the other allegations of the complaint. The answer also averred that the publication was in regard to a matter of public interest, and concerned public property and public-business, and was made by the defendant in good faith and without intent to impute to the plaintiff any fraudulent, dishonest, or criminal act, and was privileged. The complaint alleged that on February 4, 1914, the defendant published the following concerning the plaintiff:
Tanks Creates Some Sharp Comment.
The complaint also averred that:
"The defendant meant thereby that the city of Bridgeport had been deprived of all or a part of said 1,000 gallons of gasoline mentioned in said publication by fraudulent, dishonest, or criminal acts of the plaintiff." "Said publication was false and malicious."
This court has defined libel as being:
"A false and malicious publication of a person, which exposes him to public ridicule, hatred, or contempt, or hinders virtuous men from associating with him." Donaghue v. Gaffy, 54 Conn. 257, 7 Atl. 552.
Odgers, in his work on Libel and Slander, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NetScout Sys., Inc. v. Gartner, Inc.
...242–43 (Mo. App. 2011) (defendant's rating of plaintiff's business constituted nonactionable opinion).9 See Burns v. Telegram Publishing Co. , 89 Conn. 549, 552, 94 A. 917 (1915) ("[i]t is only when the court can say that the publication is not reasonably capable of any defamatory sense, th......
-
Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc.
...requires the jury to decide whether an ambiguous assertion is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. Burns v. Telegram Publishing Co., 89 Conn. 549, 552, 94 A. 917 (1915), quoting Donaghue v. Gaffy, 54 Conn. 257, 266, 7 A. 552 (1886).6 While at common law, truth was an affirmative defe......
-
Moriarty v. Lippe
...one of law for the court. Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co., 142 Conn. 605, 612, 116 A.2d 440; Burns v. Telegram Publishing Co., 89 Conn. 549, 552, 94 A. 917; Donaghue v. Gaffy, 54 Conn. 257, 266, 7 A. 552. The trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant ......
-
Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co.
...could not reasonably be considered defamatory in any sense, the matter becomes an issue of law for the court. Burns v. Telegram Publishing Co., 89 Conn. 549, 552, 94 A. 917; Donaghue v. Gaffy, 54 Conn. 257, 266, 7 A. 552. Libel is actionable per se if it charges 'improper conduct or lack of......