Dieckman v. Commercial Tribune Co.

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Dieckman v. Commercial Tribune Co.

1 Hosea's Rep. 480

DecidedJuly 1, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Hosea's Rep. 480 (Dieckman v. Commercial Tribune Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dieckman v. Commercial Tribune Co., 1 Hosea's Rep. 480 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Hosea, J.

Heard on motion to strike out.

So far as the innuendo, by the words “that the plaintiff had been guilty of acting the role of detective and of assisting a detective agency,” seeks to convey the idea that [481]*481the article charges plaintiff with assisting a detective agency by assuming a part — that is, falsely impersonating a detective — it does not explain, but contradicts the article quoted. The article describes Dieckman as “of the Grannan Detective Agency,” which can only mean that he is a detective and a member of said agency.

Thomas L. Michie, for plaintiff. Pogue & Pogue, for the motion.

The -office of the innuendo is to connect. the plaintiff with the article and to explain ambiguous terms. It can not be used to enlarge or prevent a meaning clearly expressed (8 Q. B., 825; 7 Q. B., 280).

The words ’ first above quoted must be stricken out as impertinent; and it is so ordered. Motion granted in part; denied in part.

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

Hosea, J.

Heard on motion to strike out.

So far as the innuendo, by the words “that the plaintiff had been guilty of acting the role of detective and of assisting a detective agency,” seeks to convey the idea that [481]*481the article charges plaintiff with assisting a detective agency by assuming a part — that is, falsely impersonating a detective — it does not explain, but contradicts the article quoted. The article describes Dieckman as “of the Grannan Detective Agency,” which can only mean that he is a detective and a member of said agency.

Thomas L. Michie, for plaintiff. Pogue & Pogue, for the motion.

The -office of the innuendo is to connect. the plaintiff with the article and to explain ambiguous terms. It can not be used to enlarge or prevent a meaning clearly expressed (8 Q. B., 825; 7 Q. B., 280).

The words ’ first above quoted must be stricken out as impertinent; and it is so ordered. Motion granted in part; denied in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Hosea's Rep. 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dieckman-v-commercial-tribune-co-ohsuperctcinci-1907.