Tonini

Tonini v. Cevasco

Caution
114 Cal. 266·1896 Cal. LEXIS 890·46 P. 103
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1896S. F. No. 220California2,087 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an action to recover damages for an alleged libel by the defendants in a newspaper owned by them, to the injury of plaintiff. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of one thou. *269 sand dollars, which, on the motion for a new trial, was reduced by the court to five hundred dollars. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

Appellants’ first contention is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence; but this contention cannot be maintained. The .main issues of fact were whether or not the respondent was discharged as an employee by the firm of Cevasco & Co; and whether the alleged libelous matter was true. While the evidence upon these two issues was conflicting, there certainly was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding in favor of the respondent upon both said issues.

Appellants contend that the judgment should be reversed on account of errors committed by the trial court with respect to the admissibility of evidence; but we think that this position taken by appellants is not tenable. When the defendant Crespi was on the stand as a witness for respondent, he was asked by the appellants whether or not…

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.