Zaucha v. Smolinsky

Appellate Court of Illinois

Zaucha v. Smolinsky

207 Ill. App. 158

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 2, 1917

DocketGen. No. 23,017

StatusPublished

This text of 207 Ill. App. 158 (Zaucha v. Smolinsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zaucha v. Smolinsky, 207 Ill. App. 158 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Libel and slander, § 145* — when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict. In an action of slander to recover damages for the utterance of slanderous words, charging plaintiff with having committed fornication with a married man, evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. 4. Libel and slander, § 142* — when evidence that plaintiff was not guilty of charge of fornication is admissible. In an action to recover damages for the utterance of slanderous words, charging plaintiff with having committed fornication with a married man, where defendant pleaded the truth as a defense, held that it was not error to admit testimony that plaintiff did not commit fornication with the party named by defendant. 5. Libel and slander, § 37* — what is slanderous per se. A charge of fornication is slanderous per se. 6. Libel and slander, § 21* — when malice presumed. Malice will be presumed by the use of words actionable per se.

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

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Libel and slander, § 145* — when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict. In an action of slander to recover damages for the utterance of slanderous words, charging plaintiff with having committed fornication with a married man, evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. 4. Libel and slander, § 142* — when evidence that plaintiff was not guilty of charge of fornication is admissible. In an action to recover damages for the utterance of slanderous words, charging plaintiff with having committed fornication with a married man, where defendant pleaded the truth as a defense, held that it was not error to admit testimony that plaintiff did not commit fornication with the party named by defendant. 5. Libel and slander, § 37* — what is slanderous per se. A charge of fornication is slanderous per se. 6. Libel and slander, § 21* — when malice presumed. Malice will be presumed by the use of words actionable per se.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Ill. App. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaucha-v-smolinsky-illappct-1917.