, 1869-01-01

TEE INSTRUCTIONS.
The case was closed on the part Of the plaintiff,
and ne Court Ease the iu17 the following tn
The conductor OF newspapers s,e entitled 10
no peculiar iEdnlsenee, and have no peculiar
such as aEe ccmmon 70 ali. They have inst the
came r1ghts Thai the Esst OF the com mui.T have,
as NJ no - pu.as 1a ts S %
thG injury Of otherF, With impuclty.
oud With the meaning alleged IN The d.clayatiop,
and that such article tends 10 tnpeacn the virtue
t. hf Ia M a
ss's.s sss svsesses H. H. 81 s:''s s9
that the pnS1e.on aaa contains soa.ss
report q The pr ceedlcgs IN the Police court.
N Maliee: n n ~ common acsrptaton, means ~
Justification or excuse. In sctions far l,hsl,
o ss IL ss III bson. e ;
this character The actual intention of the author Is
fSe q 65s 5ss
whose neglect. carelessncss and want Of due &C.
EsEd Ear ;,,,. Of the rigsss Of Others oeession.
make 1tparataou 10 thc extent OF such
,B6ary ~ i.eb,s, one ,Snnsh who w'l1Spl's does
It damages would &c ereasly affected r BY
the intention governing persons committing the
tItuty. Il can MAKE no difference to thn paTty
v! ful art, or By negligence o. = careless d1..e.
gard OF his rlehss. and such u consideration
ought cot 70 tf!eet bis or her remedy; bat uron
the QUESTION Of the anoubt OF damaetA, the In
| tenrcn of the rarty To .rturc another becomes
| mate1tal. ard IN the absence Of such intention.
actual Il atce In the publication, As distinct rom
legal malice, cannot Be consIIe.ed A. prompttne
| the act.
i ,ht Jus, believe, from the evidence, that tho
defendant pub1lshed the article. and In the sense
! and with the meaning alleged and imputed in the
declaration. and that The sanc Is injurtous to tho
patnt.s; she eefenaan,, onie;s the pes IN jasti.
correct repcit e tse psoceedings In the Police
cour., I. 's liable fos sush publication. even
The directors Of the managing authority of the
oeftneaIti provided, II Vas published by SER
vsrta Of she defend ant IN the course Of the exc
cnttcn o. thalr duties aa such servants hut upon
| ~ question o. actual mat,ce the lurf shond Goa
s.des all ne circumstances attending tts puosica.
sna r. ,s sss st,,es ..
tslth, ordered and directed that tuo a!legei
lsei ttould Iot be puh't.hed, Ant agsins: such
Of Hhe employees Of the defendant, the alleged
libel was IN. cried, such Facts viii be coaslderrd
1fS n Sf ,ss :.,,
Is correct report Of the proceedings Of shc Po-
lice Cont. II 1t rurpcr!s to be such. the Cour,
considered AZ icpcrt cf ,he psoeeedi1 % = Of tns
Po1rc Cous.. Is required to he substantially true
aud accurate 90 fzr IS 1t coLts!ns facts Ia zrsrr.
I
| supposed +. port should coutatn cre{y word ut
tered At the tt!Af. OF that imnatetial matter may
not be omitted. f: What t. pu5llshea must oe,
esa,rn asa,n,t The pstn,is, .nd cot M meTeiS
e9Tset inpo1t,o9s q It; md @uss t;s:e IT, lae;t
conc.rsious CT tmp1ie: 'ops from the alleged
facts. UEleta such repors have these regulates
tse ppsll.nrs q, aef esas % iRe AZ be.
licTe, frn.n the evidence, thas the publication
complained OF patpoEfs 10 be 4 report ofapso-
ceeulnc in tue Police Court, and tha. It conk1irs
substantial or .tcsta1 statements alleged facts
Or eirc1mttsEees tending alone, os with Others
.,1sa iii p "a E,ra @
proved Or testified to Ia the Police Court, then
tueh public attoa II cot true and coaect Is a &c.
p9i1!esed M M % M Gu snofd tie detendsnt no pro @
| lection on that ground.
Tas jasy N sssesslng dam.se. may take into
defendant and md sueh Damages, Is under al
the circumstance q the case, tnsy may think
proSer. p!evtted they aea The es!srssns s3ilsY'
sincsuon Is on the defendant. snd It must have
sustained II to The Eassa-slon Of the jury by the
prove he plea, and to sust.!n II, ihs defendant
rial and sut staa,,al allegations Of tic prs TEND
1ne to et,laihate ne pialnsiG In An illle'. iIst
ai vn s 4 t. s ssSaf Ia eeA.t OF Tho p.a
;n,lacs,ior. ii is inennscoi | uron sS.m | e sus =
tain such plea by evidence, And II Is TO: tho jEty
to ssy whether the defendants have sustAMed
such Plea, with evidence: aad It IL fnr thc
jury TO eAy, whether such plea W1A G1ed In good
fatsh. With reasonable expectation, under all the
eitcuDstknce. Of the case Of pr1ting The 6a11e
And II thc Jury believe such ples VIE nled WHO
forly acd In b.d tath, and ttat the publication II
cot rriEteRcd Or the justtdcsnou Is not ektso
A.hed, It en- such fact Eay be considered By fht
]nIy ~ ,s9sITsdre the original ttoel' and as eri
In segstd to The damages, the laEy !s Instructed
II Il ends for pl1tntl1-
They Gay assese tuch an I'm ount ~ they thlnl
prcpoltlt ned OF adequate TO the injury austatnet
by The plalL1in In her reputation, ard for suct
injury 20 Eef feelings Is ID natural md upaypldx
T bic in cons sequence Of the publication
!. And though the jury may believe, from ths
cS!tcoer, that thcrr was no actusl mAltlc IN ths
publication O! the libel, yet tfthty, also fusshcl
hettere. from the ev1dence thai the ples OF st,
ne1uon HAs NOT tled IN good faith. ot knoWip9l,
. that vas talsc. or Without sny reasonable e1
EefrK OF the plea t. Z rc1teratIon OF the oltq.n1
chAeXc. aud may be taken "a evidence or a.
! sgrsViferr tc. actual malice ana the Jury ms,
! Rtrc damages, bT w4T Of puulahuent in A;
a1nunn: u h!ch they ehall thlnk proper nader tbi
I evidence.
On The part OF defendant! the following instsue
! tttnB were given:
. 1hs, upon the point Of privilege the questio,
not whether the Illicit tntl macy In TACT existed
| but cut1 wEstkcx the aruele cocta1ns eun4tlu
fta!ly fasr and correct account Of the testimony
5c:osr tho PD!ee Court bearing upon this que
tnn. and, X the Jury believe from tho testi 9pu
IN this cause tnat it does, then il il nat mai
| to trQu1c width t7ca testimony was. tn lfsct
Hpt or @hetbeff the ifiJeii tntimsev Il fsr4 -.