gno.law

Mize v. Hearst

California Supreme Court · S.F. No. 1595. · 1900-12-11 · Published · 63 P. 30 · 130 Cal. 630 · 1900 Cal. LEXIS 900

E.J. Mize v. W.R. Hearst

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial
Trial judge
William R. Daingerfield
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Area
civil
Panel
The Court (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Action to recover damages for the publication of a libel by defendant in his newspaper, the "Examiner." The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars, for which amount judgment was rendered. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

No exception is taken to any ruling of the court below at the trial, nor is any alleged error of law presented; and the sole point made here for the reversal is that the amount of the damages found by the jury is excessive. But, on well-settled principles, an appellate court is not warranted in setting aside the verdict of a jury on this ground, unless the amount of damages assessed is so unreasonably large and extravagant as to show that the jury were actuated by passion, prejudice or corruption; and it is sufficient to say that the record here does not show such a case.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Cited by