Court Opinion

ID: 9632453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:15:14.142919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:16.259373
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result reached in the main opinion on the ground that the instruction given was erroneous. I also agree with the reasoning of Chief Justice WOLFE’S dissent relative to the nature and extent of diligence necessary properly to justify a motion for new trial.
It respectfully is suggested that we might have omitted a recital of the facts in this case. In detailing them we republish and emphasize the libel complained of, place it on the printed page for all to see, and widen the arena for the battle of words. It is not necessary, in the opinion of the writer, that the linen of these litigants be laundered here, nor hung out to dry in a printed volume. In repeating the facts we may do an injustice to erstwhile good and honest people, their families and friends, and open new wounds before others, less painful, have had time to heal. The facts of this case are of little importance to the people of the world, but recording them here well may bring heartache to some, — a result we easily could avoid by generous and sympathetic non-disclosure.