In such situation, D could sue her sister I for tort of libel as I made false and defamatory statement about her sister D, accusing her for having sexual relationship with her neighbor's son. The statement made by I about her sister is totally false and derogatory in nature. She made this statement just to take revenge from her sister as she disclosed her business improprieties. In addition to libel, she could also claim emotional distress caused on account of the false accusation.
a) There are two possible torts that L can be held liable for - trespass and conversion. When S order G off the property and he refuses to leave, he is trespassing onto the property because G does not have permission to be there as he does not own the property. When G takes the tools, he could liable for conversion of the property as he is wrongfully possessing the tools without permission.
b) This would depend on the reasonable person standard - is the force reasonable in light of the facts? Here, G has been asked to leave and refused. He is now trespassing. As the property owner, S may remove G as long as he uses reasonable means. As long as the two men behaved as reasonable people would in like situation (i.e. not exerting unneeded force) then they would not be guilty of assault and battery. An assault and battery charge needs unexcused and harmful or offensive physical contact intentionally performed. In this case, the contact is excused in light of the trespass.
Libel occurs when there a wrongful hurt done to an individual's reputation in writing. Here, the newspaper relied on a credible source - the police department - to publish their article. If they had no reason to believe the information was faulty, acted in good faith and exercised reasonable care, then the newspaper may not be guilty of libel. However, if they are found guilty, then the plaintiff does not have to show actual injury to recover damages.
Invasion of privacy requires that the publication of the information in question paints the plaintiff in a false light. In this case, the plaintiff is portrayed as a criminal. Thus, the newspaper could be held to this charge. However, the court may consider the newspaper relied on a credible source and did not seek to put the plaintiff under a false light.