Rearick v. Wilcox

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Citation: 81 Ill. 77,1876 WL 9919
• Parties: FREDERICK REARICKv.DANIEL WILCOX.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

81 Ill. 77

1876 WL 9919 (Ill.)

FREDERICK REARICK

v.DANIEL WILCOX.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1876.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Adams county; the Hon. JOSEPH SIBLEY, Judge, presiding. Mr. WM. H. GOVRET, and Messrs. WHEAT & MARCY, for the appellant.

Messrs. WHEAT, EWING & HAMILTON, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action for libel, brought by Frederick Rearick against the publisher and proprietor of the “Quincy Whig,” to recover damages for the publication of an article in the paper on the 15th day of April, 1875, in which Rearick, who was then a candidate for the office of police magistrate in the city of Quincy, was, in substance, charged with dishonesty and corruption; that if elected he would improve “every opportunity for peculation that might, by possibility, attach to the office;” that he had been guilty of petty dishonesty while holding the office of mayor; that, by his “own confession,” he had been guilty of corruption in respect of the tax levy of 1873; that he had made ““scandalous use” of the contingent fund of the city for his own private advantage; that he had used the public money to defray his expenses in quest of the office he was then a candidate for; that if elected the office would be used as a means of practicing and concealing fraud.

To the declaration the defendant pleaded the general issue. A trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $25, to reverse which the plaintiff in the action has brought this appeal.

The first ground of error relied upon by appellant, to reverse the judgment, is the refusal of the court to give his instruction No. 1.

The substance of the refused instruction was given to the jury in appellant's 4th and 10th, and even if the instruction contained nothing to which exception could be taken, it was not error to refuse it.

The 14th refused instruction related mainly to the question of damages, in case the jury found the defendant guilty; and upon this point they had been fully informed in regard to their duty, in the 6th, 12th and 13th of appellant's instructions, and it was not error to refuse a repetition, although expressed in different language.

The main question, however, presented by the record, arises upon the instructions given for appellee in regard to the question of damages. They are as follows:

“1. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that at the time of the publication of the article complained of, there was an election pending and about to take place, and that the plaintiff was then a candidate for an office to be filled at such election, and that the paper in which said article was published, was taking an active part in the campaign, and trying to defeat said plaintiff at said election, and that said article was written and published during the excitement of said campaign, for the sole purpose of defeating said plaintiff at said election, and without any malicious intent toward said plaintiff, the jury may take such facts into consideration in mitigation of damages.

2. Even though the jury should find the defendant guilty, still, if, from all the facts and circumstances in evidence, the jury believe that the defendant, in making the publication complained of, was actuated solely by what he believed to be for the public good, and not by any malice against the plaintiff, they may take that fact into consideration in assessing damages, and allow to said plaintiff only such damages as they believe, from all the facts and...