Garven v. Finch
This text of 116 A. 771 (Garven v. Finch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court. In addition to the Supreme Court’s citation of 25 Cyc. 250, 253, as authority that a crime need not be charged to make an action libelous, per se, we call attention to the case of Shaw v. Bender, 90 N. J. L. 147, wherein this court held that wherever words clearly sound to the disreputation of the plaintiff there is no need of further proof, as they are defamatory on their face and actionable per se.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Tren chard, Bergen, Mint urn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, White, Hbppbniieimeh, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskjrk:, JJ. 14.
For re renal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
116 A. 771, 97 N.J.L. 329, 12 Gummere 329, 1922 N.J. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garven-v-finch-nj-1922.