The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-01-05

The Law Of Libel as II Is Understood by CHI
caSo Jurors-Typographicai Errors mo- bar
In 1udw

The Law Of Libel as II Is Understood by CHI
caso Jurors-TyposraphicaI Errors mo- Bar
in Judgment.
IFrom the Chicago Tribune, Jan. IL
MALICIOUS VERDICT.
the public have had an opportunity OF reading in
OF the libel suit In which Mrs. Wilkinson claimed
damages or the Tribune for the accidental pubica-
tlon o. report OF police in which she, Mr.. A.
o. Ellithorpe and Ills vile were parties under arrest
In the face OF the facts OF the case the
jury as II in defiance OF common sense, law,
Justice and public decency. have rendered verdict
for the plaintiff awarding her $500 damages. Had
the jury been CO. plaintiffs and each man entitled TO
pV rata share OF the damages their own self-in-
terest overriding all other Considerations, would
not have permitted them to have given greater
sum Of damages. We question whet Ter there il on
record verdict which bears upon its face such In
tins one. However intelligent persons may differ
70 the completeness OF the evidence pertaining to
the character Of tine plaintiff there IL no person who
VIII question the overbearlng malice which marks
this verdict. 1t Is In behalf OF the freedom OF the
press-in behalf Of the freedom Of every other paper
published IN thus city and in the country, and In boz
hall OF this liberty oil the people thenlselves-tat
we arragn the verdict as an embodiment OF an igno
rance whose stodty Is only equaled Dy its personal
maignity. There Is not q man who sat on that Jury
who does not owe the liberty he enjoys and the
peace and security OF his family and OF his business
70 the protecting power vi the public press. Men
OF such inteects and instincts would be serfs In any
country where there was not Tree press to shield
scrupui0us. There Is not q Citizen who may not be
arrested, confined and imprisoned without law
publicity which the press would give TO such pro-
ceodings and yet, once permitting such verdIcts to
stand, no newspaper dare publish anything pertain
ing 10 the case. Such verdictS prevent newspaper
publishing any facts or news unless 1t has IN its
power to prove their truth
The facts OF this publication were:-
l. That orders were given in tina office that no
mention Of the disgracerul row should appear in the
]. That no mention Of 1t was made when it first
occurred.
s. That when the police court trial came up 1t was
u Tho rnv "a cff mo
editors that the latter ordered and directed that the
same should not appear IN TIE paper and That all
the necessary precautions we're taken to prevsnt its
I: That It was published only by an accident, in
defiance OF all these precautions, and was promptly
II there ever . case In which the absence
OF all actual malice was demonstrated, to the
CONVICTION OF every reasoning mind, this was
the CASE We know there Is distinction between
actual malice and legal malice. The latter is pre-
sumed BY hctlon OF common law from the publloa-
ton OF the libel; but. malice must be the measure
OF the damages, Is there IN all Chicago disin-
terested, intelligent man, not actuated by Q desire
to punish the paper because Il is prosperous In lis
business who will say that there was lett IN the
the remotest point upon when To mpute the slight
est actual malice TO the publshersS ON the cen
trary. the whole evidence showed unusual Efforts
not only to prevent the publication Of that police
item but also to prevent any publicity whatever
Ihe disgraceui proceeding at the house Of the
plaintiff
II accident Of this kind promptly ana fully cor
reesed at tho tne an accident happening spite OF
all reasonable precautions Is he treated as mali
cous there Is not newspaper In the country which
may not be victimized every DAY. The change Of
word-the change or single letter may make that
hbellous which otherwise might be harmless; and
yet SUCH thing may occur to any Office BY accident
or designedy, BY any malicious employe In
any Issue. case OF this very kind occurred in
Cincinnati less than year ago. A reporter, In
writing OF person, referred to him as keeper Of
boarding house. by o misprint he described as
Inc keeper Of "oawdy' house. he sued for libel.
The newspaper proved that the accident occurred
through the neglect and tnadvertence OF some OF ITS
compositors and proof readers and that 1t had
rected the error promptly. The Court ruled that
there could I've only nominal damages and Q verdict
or one cent was rendered. The libel In the Clncin-
matt case was even greater than here. There was
not the remoest evidence to Justify the
allegation that the person kept "bawdyD
house; but the jury and tne Court refused punish
wrong, even TO o respectable person, which was
purely the result OF an accident malicious,
and satisfied the legal presumption OF malice by
nominal damages We repeat that the case that
occurred In Cincinnati as well Us the one concluded
yesterday, were so purely inadvertent and acciden-
tai that there IS not newspaper ONCE in the coun
try In which they or similar ones might
not occur. designing printer, proof reader,
foreman or pressman may, In spite OF every precau-
tiOn insert lDeilous matter in the paper and rely
upon stupid and malicious jury 10 punish IT as an
act OF malice by the propretors. IL sucha verdict ID
TO stand To mark the marrow boundary in which the
higher tribunal-the peope--for that sweeping rem
edy that Will teach jurors that the iber
ties OF the people bound up with and so inti-
mately blended with that or the press that the one
cannot be assaed and outraged without doing vio-
leuce to the other