Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-11-09
Libel-Suit Abuses.

which the rather handsome sum of $40 600 was
claimed. To the establishment of everybody
this speculative partnership of LAWYER and
client found jury sufficiently stultined TO
bring IN a verdict OF g 600 damages. As set
forth at the time, there was In the publication
OF which Prince complained none of the ele-
ments going to make up a libel. 1t was shown
that this item found its way into the paper
through the ordinary local channel, IN perfect
good faith, no person connected with
its publication having any shadow of
animus against Mr.. Prince. It was shown
that, so far from there being any malice
in the matter, the relations between the STAR
company and Prince were of an entirely friend
ly nature, he being an advertiser in the paper
and they having no wish or motive to do him
harm. Prince, himself, testified that he did not
believe TIE STAR intended to injure him by
the publication, nor was he able to prove that
he had been injured to the extent Of penny by
il. Neither could it be shown that he had been
injured in reputation in the slightest degree by
the publication, that 1t was calculated to
bring upon him any oblOquy or disgrace. That
the jury in view OF these facts should bring In a
verdict of 5000 in his favor was considered as
founding. Judge Macarthur in granting q new
trial said cit was difficult TO see on
what the jury had based Q verdict
Of this amount when he had excluded
special damages. He could not say that they
had acted partially. but he was astonished on its
rendition. He could understand, had the paper
been in the habit of publishing libeIlous mat
tiers, had such a verdict been rendered But
Ii was not. Since he had been in the city he had
observed the course and conduct OF the papers
OF the District, and he had found the defendant
(THE starr 10 Be the most deeorous Of the JOSH
mails Yu5IiShed here; and IL certainly not his
fntentiOH in fHstructiHg the jury, 30 single IL out
or such rsrdict."
The sstonishment of the judge who sat In the
case, and Of the entire community, at this out
rsgeOus verdict, was shared by the country, and
was commented upon everywhere by the press
The Baltimore American had the following:
"PERsECUTION OF NEWSPAPERS. - The
Washington STAR having published an item Of
news that was assumed to injuriOusly reflect
upon certain citizen OF Washin ytOn, a libel
suit was brought, and the jury have awarded a
verdict OF three thousand dollars damages
The case appears to have been that the news
paper had no intention to harm the plaintiff,
and the publication was made through the ordi-
nary channels of information, and a correction
and apology were instantly published when the
facts in question were stated. Notwithstanding
that there was no animuS in the printing of the
item, and that The STAR subsequently did full
justice to the complainant, the jury found this
unjust verdict. 1t Is clearly NEST fragrant
outrage, and the only explanation possible Is
that the jury. had but an Anticipated cOncep-
ton Of the privileges and immunities of news
papers. 1t Is nothing new that trials in our
courts should furnish Instances OF how densely
stupid an American jury can be, but
Of nothing more unvarrantable than this
verdict. THE STAR is gong through somewhat
the same experience that The 4Hsericda has had,
but II 1t viii fight the battle through, as We did,
II will at last ind twelve men who don't believe
that neWsI aPers should be made the prey of
legal sbysteTs. We wish 1t success in the end"
The libel suit of The american to which
reference is made above was based upon a pub
- IL
OF man named Snyder, who was a newsdeaIer
on the Baltimore train, at the time Of the riot
at the President street depot in 1868, when the
passengers on their way to Philadelphia ION the
Gay before the Pennsylvania election) were
dragged from the cars and brutaly beaten.
The plaintiff, snyder alleged that he had lost
his situation through the publication and asked
$1,000 damages Judge Dobbin in this case did
not sustain the antiquated doctrine that a news
paper is TO be held responsible in all cases for the
truth Of the publication. He held that if the
conductors Of the journal believe their state
ment to be true, and act from the ordinary in
tent OF journalist to inform the public and
reform abuses, even though the statement prove
to be untrue, and the matter charged is q crime,
stll the innocent must suffer, as the journalists
are as truly innocent as the person against whom
the erroneous crime is charged. In the case of
the American, he ruled that il the statement
was believed TO be true, and was published for
the public good. it was a privileged communica-
ton, and the plaintiff could not recover The
jury, despite this charge, rendered q verdict for
$50 damages, and the case was appealed. On
the second trial this verdict was reversed, and
verdictrepdered for the defendants.
bur TO return TO our Prince Darlington libel
suit. 1t was to have been supposed, in view OF
the rebuke administered by the Judge, and by
the DQbiic This hat
this prosecution would not have the face to
appear again in court; but it seems their thirst
tor speculative damages is toe keen to be thus
subdued. They have again brought up their
"case' and increased the amount of damages
claimed TO the modest sum of SO 900 And this,
IN view OF Princes admission that he felt him
self so little damaged that he had no Idea of
prosecuting the suit until his enterprising coun-
sci volunteered to take it up on speculation,
charging him nothing unless he gained the case.
The reason why the speculative partnership
now put up their demands 70 the enormous sum
of $4,000 is evident. The process by which q
bleeding scheme Of this sort may be made to
work was 50 well illustrstedin Communication
to TIE STAR Immediately after the Prince YER
dict that we reproduce 1t:
TIE LATE OUTRAGEOUS VERDICT AGAINST
The STAR.-hr. Editor: Allow me to call pub.
lie attention TO a pernci0us and most reprehen.
slbe method in which jurymen sometime ar.
rive at their verdicts. In actions Claiming dam
ages, where from the nature of the easel there
Is no precise measure thereof that can be APP
Piled, II frequently happens that when the jury
Tetires there IL great diversity of views in re-
lation 10 the sum for which the verdict should
be rendered, some suggesting SIS, or $50, or
0fl00, or 500, or 81 600, cents, as the case
may be. After some time, and when there
seems to be q probability OF their disayreeing
some one viii propose land he is frequently
found TO be friendly to the plaintiff) that each
juryman shall write his amount on a separate
slip OF paper, throw il into q hat, and then, ali
the slips having been drawn out, the several
amounts shall be added together and di-
yided By twelve, the result to be the
verdict OF all the jury. This mode of preceding
appears very fair upon its face, but in its prsc-
teal working have known where Ii amounted
to an outrage The jurors generally act In good
faith, and write down what they honestly think
should be the proper amount, while the Juror
who proposed the matter, and knows how IL
works, Will write down an enormous sum-say
S2O,OOO. The effect OF this must be to produ &c
an outrs geous verdict; and the jurymen who in
nocently agreed to this mode Of proceeding and
themselves the victims of an unfair scheme:
but, having once agreed to this method Of arriv-
ing al result, they feel themselves bound not
70 recede therefrom. Ii IL quite posi- bla that
49, ~ y