Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-06-23
LOCAL NEWS.

TIE CLEPHANR LIBKL UAsK.-UrRcrIr
CorRr. fudge OiiH.-The InstructiOrs 20 Ae
ysry.-This morning. IN the Circuit Court
Judge DIN, the case of co han agt. Clephane
action for libel was resumed, when Judge
Oiin instructed the jury as follows:
JUDGE oLIN's CHARGE.
This is an action for libel. The suit is
brought for the purpose OF recovering dams.es
ag ainst the defendant, for the writing or pub
fishing hoeiious or slsnderous paper, Affect
ing inJuriously the character and reputation
OF the plaintiff
The publication complained Of lie set forth
in The plaintiffs complaint, and the offensive
and slanderous matter contained IN IL consists
in charging the plaintiff with disloyalty TO the
who were IN arms against the Government for
tts destruction.
1you find such to be the the meaning and
intent OF that publication, il is sian derous and
libelious in high degree.
In ascertaining whether the publication
charged is libelous you have a right and shou Id
take into consideration the condition of the
country at the time the paper was written
You will not fail 10 remember that we were in
the midst Of powerful rebellion-a war waged
on the one hand for the dismemb erment of the
Union and on the other, as have always sup
posed. for Its preservation.
Those who engaged in the late rebellion for
the subversion OF the Government by the force
OF arms were by the Constitution and the Ia WIS
guilty OF great crime, and to charge person
with disloyalty at such time, especially with
sympathizing with persons thus engaged, Is
slandProus.
1st. In the first place you will inquire wheth.
er the defendant wrote and published the let
ter set out in the plaintiffs declaration.
2d Did the defendant intend in that letter to
charge the plaintiff with being an enemy of his
Government and in sympathy with those who
We're attempting to subyert Ii BY force of arms
IL you find these two propositions i'm the at
hrmative, you will pass TO the consideration
of smother question which the law and the
facts OF the case presents.
htS oil
the Assistant Secretary OF War. The plaintiff
was then in the employment of that branch of
the executive department of the Government.
and il is claimed that this communication If
written AT all by the defendant. was a priv
LEGGED comm unication, and no matter what
was its character, or the circumstances attend
ing il, TIE defendant cannot be made liable in
TINS action. The communication is in one
sense a privileged one-if made in good faith
but If at the time he wrote il he did so without
probable cause, or knowing il TO be false, he is
liable.
The great question in the case is, WAS the
charge of disloyalty. &C. false and had the
defendant at the time of writing this letter no
probable cause for believing the charge he
made TO be true
If the charge was false: if the defendant had
no reasonable ground. such an ordinarily
prudent man would act upon for believing il
to be true, then he is liable for damages in this
action.
This action cannot be maintained by show
ing simply that the charges contained in this
letter are false. 1t must be shown that they
were not only false but made without prob
able cause. BY probable cause there must be
that degree OF proof which would con vince
the mindof an ordinarily intelligent and pru-
dent man OF the truth of the fact alleged.
The Judge proceeded to state that the bur-
den OF proof to show probable cause was upon
the plaintiff, and concluded his charge by ru-
ling upon number of prayers of the defend
ant tor instructions: and the Jury took the
case about III O'Clock, and retired to deliberate
on verdict.
The jury. on the adjournment of the court
were instructed to render a sealed verdict
The Jury agreed upon verdict about O'Clock
as a. that hour they left their room. OF course
IL Is not known yet and will not be until the
meeting of the cOurt Monday