Lewis and Herrick v. . Chapman.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that the banker’s postscript was a privileged communication and that the plaintiff must prove actual malice, not merely falsity, to sustain a libel action. The court found the trial judge’s instruction that falsity alone inferred malice erroneous. Justice Selden’s concurrence argued the words were ambiguous and should have been left to the jury, but the majority opinion prevailed.