Chapman v. Journal Publishing Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Chapman v. Journal Publishing Co.

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 423, 7 Conn. Supp. 423, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 144

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 12, 1939

DocketFile 57043

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 423 (Chapman v. Journal Publishing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapman v. Journal Publishing Co., 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 423, 7 Conn. Supp. 423, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 144 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

The motion for more specific statement is granted as to all of the four paragraphs of such motion.

In paragraph 5 of the complaint the plaintiff alleges that a ■copy of the defamatory matters would be filed in this court on the return day of the action. Such has not been done. The portion of the article of which the plaintiff complains if he does ■not complain of the whole article, should be specifically set *424 forth, so that whether on its face it is libel may be determined as a question of law or so that the defendant may meet the claim by answer and upon the trial.

It may appear that in paragraphs 1 and 4 of the motion the defendant is seeking to ascertain the plaintiff’s evidence and the identity of his witnesses. If the defendant does not know these facts before the trial, it cannot make a thorough investigation and preparation for the trial. If the allegations of the complaint as to the matters to which reference is made in these paragraphs of the motion be true, knowledge of these matters sought by the defendant in its motion cannot harm the plaintiff; lack of such knowledge by the defendant in advance of the trial might work injustice to the defendant. These facts are within the knowledge of the plaintiff. They are not within the knowledge of the defendant and the defendant has no means of securing such knowledge except as the plaintiff reveals it.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FOSTER, J.

The motion for more specific statement is granted as to all of the four paragraphs of such motion.

In paragraph 5 of the complaint the plaintiff alleges that a ■copy of the defamatory matters would be filed in this court on the return day of the action. Such has not been done. The portion of the article of which the plaintiff complains if he does ■not complain of the whole article, should be specifically set *424 forth, so that whether on its face it is libel may be determined as a question of law or so that the defendant may meet the claim by answer and upon the trial.

It may appear that in paragraphs 1 and 4 of the motion the defendant is seeking to ascertain the plaintiff’s evidence and the identity of his witnesses. If the defendant does not know these facts before the trial, it cannot make a thorough investigation and preparation for the trial. If the allegations of the complaint as to the matters to which reference is made in these paragraphs of the motion be true, knowledge of these matters sought by the defendant in its motion cannot harm the plaintiff; lack of such knowledge by the defendant in advance of the trial might work injustice to the defendant. These facts are within the knowledge of the plaintiff. They are not within the knowledge of the defendant and the defendant has no means of securing such knowledge except as the plaintiff reveals it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 423, 7 Conn. Supp. 423, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-journal-publishing-co-connsuperct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack