Skinner v. Powers

1 Wend. 451
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1828
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 1 Wend. 451 (Skinner v. Powers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Skinner v. Powers, 1 Wend. 451 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

It cannot surely be necessary to go into an examination of authorities to shew, that the publication in a newspaper of rumors, is not justified by the fact that such rumors existed. It is proper in mitigation, and in that way the defendant had the benefit of it. The law relating to the publication of a true history of legislative or judicial proceedings, has no connection with this case. Had the defendant simply published the resolutions of the assembly, and the discussions in that house, he would have been within the cases cited.

On the second question, there is no more doubt. A charge of misconduct of a specified kind, is not justified by proving the plaintiff guilty of misconduct of a similar character. If the plaintiff is charged with perjury in the libel, the defendant cannot prove him guilty of larceny.

x Nor can I doubt of the correctness of the judge’s charge, when he stated that the defendant’s justification must be as broad as the charge; and that proof of the truth of one out of many charges did not constitute a justification. Such a; circumstance would have its effect in mitigation ; but the defendant charges the plaintiff in the libel with six different acts of misconduct. In his plea, he justifies them all, and says' upon the record, that they are all true; and several more are inserted in the plea. Nothing can be more clear, [457]*457than that proving one charge out of the six, does not verify his plea, I am therefore of opinion that a new trial be denied.

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

Related

Degnan Chevrolet, Inc. v. Cocco
63 Pa. D. & C.2d 572 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1973)
Shenkman v. O'Malley
2 A.D.2d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Kilian v. Doubleday & Co.
79 A.2d 657 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
Cassidy v. Gannett Co.
173 Misc. 634 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
Walling v. Commercial Advertiser Ass'n
165 A.D. 26 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
Meeker v. Post Printing & Publishing Co.
135 P. 457 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1913)
Bergstrom v. Ridgway Co.
138 A.D. 178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Wilkens v. Hammann
43 Misc. 21 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
People v. Sherlock
56 A.D. 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Republican Publishing Co. v. Miner
3 Colo. App. 568 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1893)
Sawyer v. Bennett
20 N.Y.S. 45 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
Hathorn v. Congress Spring Co.
51 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 608 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
Jones, Varnum & Co. v. Townsend's Administratrix
21 Fla. 431 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1885)
Whitney v. Janesville Gazette
29 F. Cas. 1091 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin, 1873)
Burford v. Wible
32 Pa. 95 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Dame v. Kenney
25 N.H. 318 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1852)
Stilwell v. Barter
19 Wend. 487 (New York Supreme Court, 1838)
State v. Burnham
9 N.H. 34 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1837)
Alderman v. French
18 Mass. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1822)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Wend. 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-powers-nysupct-1828.