What is the test for establishing malice in a libel action?

Appellant argues that in any event the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to extablish malice. This argument is not persuasive. In Scott v. Times-Mirror Co., 181 Cal. 345, 184 P. 672, 680, 12 A.L.R. 1007, it is said that it is well established that in actions for civil libel where the plaintiff seeks to recover punitive or exemplary damages, or where the defendant alleges that the publication was justified on the ground that it was privileged, actual malice or malice in fact becomes an issue; that the question of whether a publication was inspired by actual malice is essentially and peculiarly a question of fact; that therefore any evidence which would logically tend to solve the question and which is not otherwise objectionable is admissible; that the test to be applied to evidence offered for this purpose is: Does it tend to prove the state of mind of the party responsible for the publication?; that if the evidence has such logical import and is not otherwise incompetent, it must be received, and it is for the triers of the fact to determine the weight to be given such evidence. It is further held in that case that