ATTEMPTS AS HERE WAS DONE.
"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III.
"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DENYING PLAINTIFF RUST'S ACTION FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, REPUTATION AS A COMPETENT LAWYER, EMBARRASSMENT BEFORE THE DOWNTOWN ROOTERS, AND BY THE PUBLICITY IN THE BLADE, THROUGHOUT THE BLADE'S AREA; BECAUSE ANY TIME A LAWYER HAS TO ADMIT A FALSE NOTORIZATION [sic], ALTHOUGH NO HARM TO ANYONE WAS INTENDED; AND THE LAWYER, AS HERE, DID ALL HE COULD TO PREVENT USE OF SUCH PETITIONS, SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF RUST HAD BEEN DONE.
"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV.
"THE CITY OF TOLEDO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN MISLEADING THE DOWNTOWN ROOTERS WHEN THE CLERK OF COUNCIL BREWER ON APRIL 30, 1994, MISLED THE DOWNTOWN ROOTERS IN COUNTING AND VALIDATING THE BAKER PETITIONS WHEN THE CLERK CERTIFIED THE NUMBER OF VALID SIGNATURES AND FOUND THAT THE DOWNTOWN
ROOTERS WERE ONLY BEHIND BY ABOUT A THOUSAND VOTES, BUT THEN WHEN THE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE CAME UP WITH MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF TOTAL SIGNATURES WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL CLERK ON JUNE 30, 1994, HAD CERTIFIED WERE NEEDED, BUT THEN LATER THE CITY LAW DIRECTOR CLAIMED THAT THEN AT THAT DATE, AFTER THE STATED JULY 15, 1994, DATE WHEN THE COMMITTEE SUPPORTERS COULDN'T GET MORE SIGNATURES, CERTIFIED THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURES WERE BELOW THE MINIMUM OF 9,510, THE COMMITTEE'S CAUSE WAS SHOT DOWN BY SUCH BAD FAITH, `MOUSE-TRAPPING' INDEED AND IN TRUTH, MISLEADING AND IN EFFECT FRAUDULENT TREATMENT OF THE COMMITTEE AND THEIR DOWNTOWN SUPPORTERS.
"ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V.
"THE TRIAL JUDGE AND COURT STAFF COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GIVING PLAINTIFF RUST A COPY OF THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY WHICH ALLOWED PLAINTIFF RUST TO RECOVER FOR DEFAMATION, DAMAGE AND LOSS OF REPUTATION AS AN ATTORNEY, EMBARRASSMENT, AMOUNT TO ALL PLAINTIFF RUST HAD PRAYED FOR, BUT THEN, AFTER THE COURT CHANGED THE PARTS DEALING WITH THE DAMAGES ALLOWED TO BE FOUND BY THE JURY, THE COURT AND STAFF DID NOT INFORM PLAINTIFF RUST, WHO THEN NATURALLY ARGUED LOSS, AND DAMAGE, OF REPUTATION, AND ASKED FOR THE FULL $10,000.00 SUED FOR; AND FINALLY, THE COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT PLAINTIFF RUST COULD ONLY RECOVER FOR THE LOSS OF TIME IN TRYING TO RECOVER THE PETITIONS AND IN BEING SUBPOENAED AT THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS HEARINGS - THUS IN EFFECT SHOWING RUST HAD MADE ANOTHER `MISTAKE [sic] - AND IT MADE PLAINTIFF RUST LOOK `LIKE AN ASS' - A DEATH BLOW TO HIS CASE."
Appellant Baker puts forth the following two assignments of error:
"Assignment of Error 1
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Plaintiff-Appellant in overruling the initial request for reconsideration of the court granted summary judgment.
"Assignment of Error 2
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Plaintiff-Appellant in general in overruling the request for new trial."
Appellees Iiams and Howard have not filed briefs in this matter.
I As their first assignment of error, both appellants challenge the trial court's decision that appellee city and appellee Brewer