300 N.W. 308 | Iowa | 1941
This is the second time this case has been before us. See McCuddin v. Dickinson,
[1] I. Appellant's assignment of error is that the court erred in giving Instruction No. 10.
Appellant objects to the italicized portion of the instruction. It was reversible error to state that to constitute a complete defense it was necessary, in addition to the truth, the statements be published in good faith and with good motives.
The general rule is in civil actions of libel or slander, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the truth of the defamatory words is a complete defense. 36 C.J. 1231, section 193; 33 Am. Jur. 117, section 117. This almost universal rule is the law in this state. Children v. Shinn,
[2] At common law the truth of a libel was not a defense *1143 in criminal prosecutions. However, this rule has been abrogated by statute in this state. Section 13259, 1939 Code, reads:
"13259 Truth given in evidence. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth thereof may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it appear to them that the matter charged as libelous was true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be acquitted."
[3] II. Appellee asserts appellant's plea of justification was not stated with sufficient particularity to inform the plaintiff precisely of the facts to be tried.
In Salinger v. Cowles,
"The general rule in actions of libel is that, where the defamatory charge is general in its nature, the plea must state specifically the acts or offenses of which plaintiff is guilty, or other facts showing the truth of the charge. A mere assertion that the charge is true is not sufficient."
However, the sufficiency of defendant's plea of justification was not questioned in the lower court. The case was tried and submitted to the jury on the theory the plea was sufficient.
[4] III. We understand appellee's third proposition for affirmance to present the point that though not appealing or assigning errors, the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict and therefore his judgment on the verdict must be sustained although Instruction No. 10 constituted error requiring a reversal.
In Thompson v. Butler,
"[4] A successful party without appeal or assigning errors, may show that on the face of the record he is entitled to the judgment because of errors committed against him, though errors had also been committed against appellant."
In appellee's motion for a directed verdict he claimed defendant offered evidence to sustain the truth only as to one of several libelous statements.
We are of the opinion that the only charge against the defendant is that he stated plaintiff was a liar and a perjurer. *1144
Appellant introduced evidence to sustain his plea of justification on this issue and it was sufficient to take the case to the jury — we so held in McCuddin v. Dickinson,
The trial court was right in overruling appellee's motion for a directed verdict. — Reversed.
MILLER, C.J., and HALE, OLIVER, SAGER, GARFIELD, WENNERSTRUM, and BLISS, JJ., concur.