Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mark J. Hammett v. Times-Herald, Inc., a Body Corporate, Also Known as Washington Times-Herald, Inc., 7066_1 (1955)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 7066_1 Visitors: 38
Filed: Nov. 14, 1955
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 227 F.2d 328 Mark J. HAMMETT, Appellant, v. TIMES-HERALD, Inc., a body corporate, also known as Washington Times-Herald, Inc., Appellee. No. 7066. United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. Argued Nov. 11, 1955. Decided Nov. 14, 1955. John S. White, Hyattsville, Md., for appellant. John Henry Lewin, Baltimore, Md. (David C. Green, Venable Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., and Perry S. Patterson, Washington D.C., on brief), for appellee. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and B
More

227 F.2d 328

Mark J. HAMMETT, Appellant,
v.
TIMES-HERALD, Inc., a body corporate, also known as
Washington Times-Herald, Inc., Appellee.

No. 7066.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 11, 1955.
Decided Nov. 14, 1955.

John S. White, Hyattsville, Md., for appellant.

John Henry Lewin, Baltimore, Md. (David C. Green, Venable Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., and Perry S. Patterson, Washington D.C., on brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and BARKSDALE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an appeal in a libel case based on a newspaper article ridiculing a brochure circulated by a candidate for public office in which he highly recommended himself to the voters. The case was submitted to a jury in a fair and impartial charge to which no exception was taken. Certain instructions requested were not given, but the law was fairly covered in the general charge. There were no errors in the admission or rejection of testimony that are worthy of consideration. If there was any error in the trial of the case, it was in not directing a verdict for defendant; for the ridiculing of the self laudatory brochure did not exceed fair comment and there was nothing in the concluding line of the article 'Anybody like to go with him steady?' which justifies the construction that it charged homosexuality by innuendo. Contention to that effect is frivolous.

2

Affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer