Williams v. Standard-Examiner Pub. Co.
Decision Date | 28 November 1933 |
Docket Number | 5106 |
Citation | 83 Utah 31,27 P.2d 1 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. STANDARD-EXAMINER PUB. CO. et al |
Appeal from District Court, Second District, Weber County; Geo. S Barker, Judge.
Action by Fred E. Williams against Standard-Examiner Publishing Company and others. From an adverse judgment, named defendant appeals.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS.
George C. Buckle, of Ogden, for appellant.
Stuart P. Dobbs, of Ogden, for respondent.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants damages because of the alleged false and defamatory publication on July 14, 1929, of an article in a newspaper, known as the Standard-Examiner, owned by the defendant Standard-Examiner Publishing Company, a corporation. The trial resulted in the plaintiff securing a verdict and judgment against the defendant corporation for the sum of $ 3,000. A verdict of no cause of action was returned by the jury as to the defendants Abraham L. Glasmann, Joseph U. Eldredge, Jr., and James P. Casey. The defendant corporation appeals. Its assignments of error attack the judgment appealed from upon the following grounds: That the evidence does not support the verdict and judgment; that the trial court erred in the reception and rejection of evidence; in the instructions given to the jury; in refusing to give certain of appellant's requested instructions; and that the court erred in refusing to grant appellant a new trial. The insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff was raised in the court below by a motion for a nonsuit at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence in chief and by a motion for a directed verdict for the defendants and each of them at the conclusion of all of the evidence. The motions were based upon defendants' claim that the publication complained of was shown by the evidence to be a qualifiedly or conditionally privileged communication and as such required proof of actual malice on the part of the defendants and that no such proof was offered, and upon the further ground that the evidence showed that the facts stated in the publication were true, and that the comments and criticisms appearing in the publication were true, and that the comments and criticisms appearing in the publication were true, and that the comments and criticisms appearing in the publication were fair and proper. Both motions were denied. Appellant assigns such rulings as error.
'There are no means provided for accurately measuring this supply, but it is approximately 4 second ft., or roughly 2,500,000 gallons per day.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sylvester v. Armstrong
......Holloway (Colo.) 83 P. 131;. Henry v. Moberly (Ind.) 51 N.E. 497; Williams v. Pub. Co. (Utah) 27 P.2d 1; Parr v. Lumber Co. (S. D.) 236 N.W. 291; Zanley v. Hyde (Mich.) ......
-
West v. Thomson Newspapers
...Russell v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 842 P.2d 896, 902 (Utah 1992); Ogden Bus Lines v. KSL, Inc., 551 P.2d 222, 224-25 (Utah 1976); Williams, 27 P.2d at 15-16. 21 In the June and July columns, defendants stated that West opposed municipal power prior to the election and supported it afterwa......
-
Cox v. Hatch
...which provided the basis for the decision in Ogden Bus Lines v. KSL, Inc., 551 P.2d 222 (Utah 1976), and Williams v. Standard-Examiner Publishing Co., 83 Utah 31, 27 P.2d 1 (1933). In both of these cases, the basic privilege was not directly rooted in the First Amendment, but was founded on......
-
Montgomery v. City of Philadelphia
...K.B. 627; Hamilton v. Eno., 1880, 81 N.Y. 116; Stevenson v. Northington, 1933, 204 N.C. 690, 169 S.E. 622; Williams v. Standard-Examiner Publishing Co., 1933, 83 Utah 31, 27 P.2d 1.5 Montgomery v. Dennison, supra, note 2, 363 Pa. at page 264, 69 A.2d 520; 3 Restatement, Torts §§ 600-605 (li......