Jenks's Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland [Me.]) 1799-1802, 1800-01-06

the caufes of aeiion which DIR. kuih had
gana VIM. Cobbett, we nieft Judge Ship
pens elegant charge to the Jury Of trial. We
recommend it 10 the careful perufal Of every
friend to domefts peace, and individual repu
tation. 1t fets in true light, the effects OF
1ander and defamation upon public and phi
vate honor and happinels and we think, mutt
eonduce to check that current of party abuie,
which has 10 long involved deceney and
truth in its banefnl courfe and fwept them
far away from our view.
ITHIS is an action brought by the plaintiff
Il againt the defendant for writing, printing
and publfhing divers (candalous libels, TO de-
fame and vilify him. The defendant has plead.
Ell that he is NOT guilty his council however,
have Acknowledged the publication ct his pa
pers, which, otherwife it would have been in
cumbent on the plaintiff to prove.-The quef
ton, therefore, will be, whether they amount in
law 10 defamatory libels or not /!
BY the law and practice in England, in the
cafe of libels, the only talk of the jury is, to
Judge Of the fae of publication, and the truth
and fair application of the nueudoes the court,
as Judges Of the law, reierving TO ,hemfelves
the fole power of deciding whether the paper
amounts to libel or not. But in this fate, by
the fpecial directions of cur conaiiuton, the
Jury polefs the power of Judging both Of the law
and fact, under the direction of the court.
A libel is defined BY the law, to be the ma
liclous defamation, expreaed either in printing
or writing, or by iigns or piaures, tending to
blacken either the memory of one who is dead,
or the reputation of one who Is alive, or to ex-
pofe him to public hatred, contempt or rdicue.
This offence may be puoihei, either by indiet-
ment at the fut Of the commonwealth, or by a
civil action at he fuit of the patty injured
Where the profecution is by indictment, the
court only are to direa the puniihment but in
a civil fuit, the damages are 10 be aheied foley
by the jury.
The charges laid againa the defendant in the
declaration, are various but they may he re-
duced in fubaance to the following-Thst he
repeatedly calls the plaintiff quaek, an EN-
phyric charges him with incorporate bleeding,
|injudiciouny administering mercury in large
dofes in the yellow fever; putting himfe'f off I;
writing letters and aniwering them himfelf,
filling him the Sampfon in medicine charging
him with numbering his patients, and laying
his thouiands and tens of thouiands. The
counts laid in tie declaration are fully proved
by the publications, which are certainly libel.
lous. In what manoer do the defendants coun.
Eel repel thefa proofs not by uaifying the truth
of the matters charged avyina Doctor Ruth,
which on the contrary they have repeatedly
acknowledged 10 be falle, but by Analysing the
ieveral allegations in the newspapers, and from
thence drawing concluion that no intentional
perlonal malice appears, which they fayis the
eaencc of the offence. Malice refs in the heart,
and is only to be judged of by the words and
actions Of the party the words themfelves
import malice and in that cafe the proof lies on
the defendant TO thew the innocence OF his in-
tentions if he has done THAT 10 your ati,fac.
| ton, you will acquit him but as this is chiefly
founded on the allegation that the attack was
! meant to be made on Doctor Ruins lyqem and
! NOT on the man; it unfortunately appears that
not the lealt attempt is made to combat the
doefor's arguments with regard to the fyRem
itielf, but the attack is made merely by gro!s
| icurrIlous abule of the doaor himfelf added
to this, one of the wtncGes prove declaration
made by the defendant, that if doctor Ruth had
not been the man he lhould never have n,eddled
with the Gfsm.
ferrous nature, as it leads to an important quell-
ion on our contitution-it is fad that the fub-
jet of diipute between the plaintiff and defend
ant was matter of public concern, as it related
to the health and lives of our felcw citizens
aud that by the words of our contribution every
man has right to diitufs iuch fubieets in print
| The liberty OF the prefs, gentlemen, is vaua.
he right in every free couauy, and ought never
to be unduly reftiaincd but when II is perver
ted to the purpofes of private llander, it then
becomes mott defrudive engine in The hands
OF unprineiplcd men the utmoR purity and
integrity Of heart isno ihield againlt the lhafls
and arrows of malice, conveyed to the world by
printed publications. Verbal finder may be
Frequently very injurious, but neoder in writing
or print being more generally didaminated, and
more durable ia its eife9s, is consequently inf
niteIy more peInicious and provoking.