O'Toole v. Post Printing & Publishing Co.
Decision Date | 04 January 1897 |
Docket Number | 6 |
Citation | 179 Pa. 271,36 A. 288 |
Parties | Mollie O'Toole v. The Post Printing and Publishing Company, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 26, 1896
Appeal, No. 6, Oct. Term, 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. Term, 1894, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.
Trespass for libel. Before KENNEDY, J.
At the trial it appeared that the libelous publications complained of appeared in the Pittsburg Post on October 10 and 11, 1893.
The first article, which was published, Oct. 10, 1893, has these headlines in large letters: And the article reads thus:
This was followed the next day, October 11, with another article which reads thus, without any head lines:
The plaintiff having testified that after her return from her trip East, some three weeks after the publication, she went to the office of the Post Printing & Publishing Company and there saw a Mr. Barr, she then continued as follows:
To which defendant objected as follows:
We object to this. This is a suit against a corporation, and declarations after the fact are hardly competent. We object to any statements of agents or employees of the corporation sued, some weeks after the fact, and not as part of the res gestae.
Objection overruled. Exception and bill sealed.
Thereupon the witness testified as follows:
Objected to. That is a question for the jury and not for the witness.
By the Court:
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial. If important the persons themselves are the best witnesses.
Objection overruled. Exception and bill sealed.
To which defendant objected as incompetent.
Objection overruled. Exception and bill sealed.
[4]
Eliza Mulligan, a witness called on behalf of the plaintiff, being upon the stand testified as follows:
To which defendant objected as incompetent.
Objection overruled. Exception and bill sealed.
[5]
A. J. Barr and F. X. Barr who were connected with the newspaper testified that they had offered to publish a retraction which plaintiff declined to accept. This was denied by the plaintiff. No request was made by the defendant to the court for instruction as to this disputed fact.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,600. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were (1-5) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions; (6) in not charging the jury as to the effect of the offers of retraction tendered to plaintiff before suit brought, and by her declined, as testified to by defendant's witnesses, A. J. Barr and F. X. Barr.
The judgment is affirmed.
Willis F. McCook, with him John Marron, for appellant. -- The declarations of an agent made at the time of the particular transaction which is the subject of inquiry, and while acting within the scope of his authority, may be given in evidence against his principal, as a part of the res gestae; but the declarations of an agent made after the transaction is fully completed and ended, are not admissible: Huntingdon R.R. v. Decker, 82 Pa. 119; Giberson v. Patterson Mills Co., 174 Pa. 369.
The effect of the publication is for the jury: P., A. & M. Pass. Ry. v. McCurdy, 114 Pa. 554; Rangler v. Hummel, 37 Pa. 130.
A. B. Reid, with him A. V. D. Watterson, for appellee. -- The evidence of a refusal to retract was properly offered and its weight and effect was for the jury: 1 Whart. Ev., sec. 261.
Hearsay evidence upon the subject of reputation is always admissible: 1 Whart. Ev., sec. 253.
It is competent to prove by bystanders, neighbors, acquaintances or any person hearing slanderous reports or reading a libelous article, the effect of such reports upon their minds, not for the purpose of proving the meaning of the words used in the innuendo charged, but to substantiate proof of damages sustained: Warner...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosenberger v. H.E. Wilcox Motor Company
... ... v. McKinley, 124 Minn. 183, 144 N.W. 768; ... O'Toole v. Post P. & P. Co. 179 Pa. 271, 36 A ... 288; Buffum v. York Mnfg. Co. 175 ... ...
-
Rosenberger v. H. E. Wilcox Motor Co.
...548, 51 N. W. 605,31 Am. St. Rep. 691;Itasca Cedar & Tie Co. v. McKinley, 124 Minn. 183, 144 N. W. 768, 1135;O'Toole v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 179 Pa. 271, 36 Atl. 288;Buffum v. York Mfg. Co., 175 Mass. 471, 56 N. E. 599; 3Fletcher, Corp. § 2160. 3. The fact that this transaction o......
-
McGuigan v. Beatty
... ... Meyers, for appellee, cited ... O'Toole v. Post Printing, etc., Co., 179 Pa ... 271; Phila. & R.R. Co. v. Huber, 128 Pa ... ...
-
Mills v. Flynn
... ... Chronicle Co. , ... 107 Iowa 407, 78 N.W. 45; Berger v. Publishing Co. , ... 132 Iowa 290 at 293, 109 N.W. 784 ... III ... These ... cases were followed in Morse v. Printing Co. , 124 ... Iowa 707, 100 N.W. 867; Bank v. Fritz , 135 Iowa 44 ... ...