WEGLEIN v. GOLDER

Libel and slander — Political address over radio — Delivery to newspapers for publication — Charge of court — Privilege — Malice — Statement by defendant of information received by him — Confining jury to consideration of libel only — Verdict of jury.

1. Where, in an action for libel and slander, it appeared that in the course of a political campaign defendant, in a libelous publication containing charges of a studied and deliberate nature, accused plaintiff, an officer of a bank, of having committed the specific crime of taking deposits at a time when he knew the bank to be insolvent, and in the publication invited prosecution for libel, declaring his full realization of the gravity of his charges and his responsibility for their publication, and promising to defend any prosecution that might be instituted by proof of truth of his charges, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that the article in question was privileged but that they might find from the circumstances of its publication and the nature of the article itself that it bore inherent evidence of malice, and thus lost its character as a privileged communication. [439-40]

2. In such case, it was not error to refuse to permit the defendant to state the information which he had received, and which he claimed was the basis of the alleged libel, especially where the defendant actually produced the evidence and information upon which he claimed to have acted in formulating and publishing the alleged libel. [440-41]

3. Where plaintiff averred in his statement of claim that defendant had prepared the alleged libelous address and sent it to certain newspapers for publication before its delivery over the radio, the statement sounded both libel and slander, and defendant was not harmed, and the trial judge committed no error, in confining the jury to a consideration of the case as one of libel alone. [438-9]

Argued January 7, 1935.

PER CURIAM, February 4, 1935:

Upon consideration of the whole record in this case, the judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion by Judge GORDON.