Seip v. Deshler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 7, 1895

Seip v. Deshler, 170 Pa. 334 (Pa. 1895)

32 A. 1032; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1410

Dean, Green, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

All that need be said in relation to the first, second, eighth *346and ninth specifications of error is that the statement of claim is sufficient both in form and in substance; but, if there be any defect therein, it is only such as was amendable, and has been cured by the verdict, or may be considered amended now. The words of the letter set out in the statement, so far at least as they relate to insanity, are clearly defamatory and actionable.

The whole of the letter referred to and those of August 9th, 1889, and March 22,1890, received in evidence under exception, were not improper for the consideration of the jury on the questions of malice and damages. The fifth, sixth and seventh speccifications are therefore not sustained.

The case was fairly submitted to the jury with substantially correct and adequate instructions as to the law applicable to the facts which the testimony tended to establish. When the charge is considered as a whole, in connection with the testimony before the jury, there appears to be no error in the portions thereof that are complained of.

There is nothing in any of the specifications that requires extended comment. Neither of them is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Annie E Seip v. William H. Deshler
Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Libel — Letter—Charge of insanity. A written charge duly published that another person is insane, if untrue and maliciously made, is libelous and actionable. In an action lor libel, a letter in the handwriting of the defendant, but not signed, addressed to the plaintiff, stated that plaintiff had received every dollar due her, and continued, “yes more than you are entitled to but the misfortune is you (and yours) are too ignorant or insane to know it. . . . Poor thing, poor thing, what will insanity not accomplish.” Held, that the letter, in so far as it involved the charge of insanity, was defamatory'and actionable. Libel — Malice—Evidence. In an action to recover damages for libelous matter contained in a letter, the jury will not be confined in their deliberation to the parts declared on as libelous but the whole letter, and other letters written by defendant to plaintiff, prior to the libelous letter, not libelous in themselves, but exhibiting ill will towards the plaintiff, are admissible on the questions of malice and damages. Libel — Letter—Publication—Question for jury. When a libelous letter is sent to the plaintiff through the mails, the question of publication is for the jury where the evidence for the plaintiff, though contradicted, tends to show that the letter was received by an agent of the plaintiff, authorized to open letters, and was opened and read by him before it reached the plaintiff.