[1] Action fob Libel—Evidence—Other Libelous Articles—Dissimilarity of Import—Appeal—Review Under General Objection.—In an action for civil libel, the objection to the admission in evidence of other libelous articles on the ground that they were not of a similar import to and were too remote in time from the article in question is reviewable under the general objection of incompetency, irrelevancy, and immateriality.

[2] Id.—Malice—When an Issue.—In an action for civil libel, where the plaintiff seeks to recover punitive or exemplary damages, or where the defendant alleges that the publication was justified on the ground that it was privileged, actual malice or malice in fact becomes an issue.

[3] Id.—Evidence—Other Libelous Articles—Remoteness in Time. In an action for libel the remoteness in time of publication of other libelous articles goes to the weight of the evidence only and not to it's admissibility.

[4] Id.—Existence of Malice—Evidence.—In an action for libel, it is essentially and purely a question of fact whether the publication of the article was inspired by actual malice, and any evidence which logically tends to solve the question, and which is not otherwise objectionable, is admissible.

[5] Id.—Other Libelous Articles of Dissimilar Import—Admissibility in Proof of Malice.—In an action for libel, other libelous articles not of similar import, are admissible for the purpose of proving malice.

[6] Id.—Libelous Article Concerning Attorney at Law—Damages —Matters for Consideration of Jury.—In an action for civil libel growing out of an article published in a newspaper concerning an attorney at law, the plaintiff is not required to prove, and in the nature of things cannot prove, the extent to which he has been damaged, or of what legal fees he has been deprived through the circulation of the libel, or what clients he has lost by it, and the jury may consider as a basis for its award of actual damages all of such matters, including the wide publicity given to the libel, plaintiff’s prominence in the community where he lives, his professional standing, his good name and reputation, and his injured feelings and mental sufferings.

[7] Actual Damages—Discretion—Appeal.—The question of the ex-cessiveness of an award of actual damages is primarily addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless it appears that such award is the result of passion or prejudice, it cannot he disturbed on appeal.

[8] Punitive Damages—Discretion of Jury.—In the matter of punitive damages juries have a wider discretion than they have in the matter of compensatory damages.

[9] Misconduct of Counsel—Failure to Bequest Instruction to Disregard—Appeal—Matter not Beviewable.—Where the action of the trial court is not invoked, alleged misconduct of counsel will not be considered on appeal, if an admonition to the jury would have removed the effect thereof.

[10] Libel—Conduct of Attorney in Divorce Action—Evidence— Admissibility of Complaint.—In an action for libel growing out of the publication of an article concerning the conduct of an attorney at law in a divorce action in which he represented the wife, the complaint filed by him in such action on behalf of his client was admissible for the purpose of showing the nature and character of the charges made by the wife against her husband under oath; and the fact that such attorney by filing said complaint acted upon the statements made by her. '

[11] Id.—Admissibility of Biography of Plaintiff.—In such action for libel there was no error in allowing the plaintiff to give a biographical sketch of himself.

[12] Id.—Appearance of Plaintiff as Own Attorney.—In such action it was not error to allow plaintiff, who was represented by another attorney, to appear as his own attorney and to argue the case to the jury.

[13] Appeal—Error in Befusing Instructions—When not Beviewable.—Alleged error in refusing to give requested instructions will not be considered on appeal where the objections are merely stated without any citation of authority or any argument beyond the bare statement that the court ,also erred in refusing to give such requested instructions.