In a libel action against newspaper publisher grounded on libelous statement contending that plaintiff used fraud to obtain a tree planting contract from city and used substandard trees, questions of truth and of malice in publishing them were for jury who found for plaintiff.

"A conditional privilege... is established if the facts, although untrue, were published on a lawful occasion, in good faith, for a justifiable purpose, and with a belief, founded on reasonable grounds of its truth."

The Court must consider "all the circumstances under which [the] words were written, their context,[and] the meaning which could reasonably be given to them by the readers."

Furthermore, although Papa Gino's flatly states that the $50,000 award for defamation was excessive, we find no authority that holds that such an amount, on its face, should be found excessive.

This does not mean the trial court erred by awarding Lassonde $10,000, however, as is argued by the Stantons. "When as in this case, the [fact finder] could find that the defamatory publication charged the plaintiff... with activities which would tend to injure him in his trade or business, commonly called libel per se, he can recover as general damages all damages which …

—articles defaming plaintiff, who was under contract with the city and was accused of fraudulently substituting inferior shrubbery, were privileged, but that the privilege was abused

We have held that conditional privileges can be defeated by a showing of malice involving ill will or intent to harm.

[CITATION] Fundamental rights in the new constitution: an overview of the new …

[CITATION] Petitioners, v. LB Sullivan'

[BOOK] Understanding the constitution

[CITATION] West's Encyclopedia of American Law

[BOOK] Landmark Decisions of the US Supreme Court

[CITATION] Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits

[CITATION] All about torts