Hardie

Von Stein v. Hardie

Good Law
105 Cal. App. 780·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 909·288 P. 680
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 1930Docket No. 6354.California927 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

The plaintiff brought an action for libel and after trial the jury returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars. The court granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial and the cause is here upon an appeal from that order. It is insisted by appellant that the letter which is the cause of the litigation is libelous per se and urged with equal earnestness not to be by the respondent. Our first inquiry will be to determine the libelous character of the writing. The letter follows:

The respondent says he owes Mr. Meline an apology for having recommended appellant in the first instance. Why? Is it because he is professionally unfit or unworthy or because respondent dislikes his personality? If it were a personality incompatible with his own how could respondent have failed to discover that fact prior to the letter of recommendation? Or why should he be certain that Mr. Meline upon further acquaintance would be equally dissatisfied with appellant? It was by reason of several things which respondent learned after the plaintiff left his employ and went to work for Meline. What were they? Evidently they were of very serious character, because the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.