Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-02-22

They both sgreec tbst u would not DO 20 treat
turcd hsdinage and he was not the man intend
cd 10 he bit AZ all, and he was not hit IN . man
ner "a comp ain about They charge him with
nothr G He did not come 90 them and say,
You have charged me here With falsely prose
cutng woman, with mslicisusiy arrcSting a
man Nothing d the kind But he wanted
ard IIirt IL hat sh.uid in way sslye n over,
and be wrote and published This article headed
p i. p p" Mr.. Moves va willing "a 10 any
th!ng that could be done with " p. and he nm
d,rstocd that that WAS what Mr. Prince re
Now. What neyt2 The complainant, here
sSesrs that he did not so there after that
s,,okd article. We'll. W. know perfectly well
tia; be did. He l. mistaken shout that II he
thinks lie did rot, because YOU know that there
was a convcrsaiion between these parties, that
he bad threatened At one time to arrest Mrs
humt-this very lAdy-and that n had had q
c3st 81 aWomsns taking property in his shop.
and that be shut the door and made her return
IT, when did that conversation take place
pray" Tie dc,s not exactly deny that there was
any such conversation. hut be does deny that he
wss az the offcr after the publication 81 the sec
ord article. Mr.. Moves SAYS that he came IN
after that second article. and they talked n
over. Did ne tell Mr.. Moves that tins secOAi
article wss not what he wanted published
Not ~ all. nid H. ssy, You attempted - make
an eNplanstiOn. and ycu have not dome ~ q"
No. But he comedies that the article was iuS
Mat he expected: aud just What he agreed 20
nnt II ally " hen he came Co see IL printed q
did rot suit linn - well aS he thought
u would. We'll. Nho~e fault was thai" n as
Iust exactly what he wanted. lie dictated n
himself He Judged Ia has own cas- ot What uaS
tCst for linn, and he GOT this. and iii not lac
II. Thai j. all And there Was a further con-
Nersaiion between thcm A. 20 what would satisfy
HIM He proposed 10 publish card, and they
TAXED that over. IL was concluded that II
Mould not Do 90 pint any more a. ala, least
nm the STAR, 10 he did, he was afraid he would
not do anv printing anywhere else, because. De
says, there was case where he had made a
VI man give NJ something that she had taken.
There WAS = case whore h. had charged Mrs
Hume with passing n counterfeit bill. aud 10
would not do before the public in a grave de-
claraiign. 90 DENY these facts. Hum. knew
better and the lady and her friends knew bet
ter That We Md not do. The truth MAS gen
temen. he did not ask that anything more
shonid he done. There Was nothing more that
Gentlemen. am 20 stand here 90 argue that
Won will not give damages in such a case as this
No. 4 am going 90 leave this case here with
absolute confidence in yOu.
Mr.. j. McD. Darlington closed the argument
for the plaintiff. urging the jury Co project the
public from the lcentiouSness Of the press. and
treated at length upon the manner i'm which the
jury should assfss damages.
Judge Macarthur instructed the jury a. fol-
lows
CHARGE oF THR Court.
Gentlemen. the law has been - amply dis
cussed 10y the counsel on both sides 20 the jury,
and its discussion has been accompanied with
reading from the text books Co such an extent a.
TO relieve me fromeNplaining IL very fully 10 the
formed a. 20 the nature OF a libel, that u ~ a
publication of matter concerning an individual
which has tendency 10 hold him up 10 public
ridlcule, hatred and contempt, which il cslcu-
lated TO do him injury; TO injure his reputation
by accusing him OF acts of immoral conduct or
OF crime Every publication of this des-riptiOn
having stendency 10 hOlda person mp 20 ridicule,
and TO make him appear contemplate. l. libel
lous. With this view OF what CONSTITUTES libel u
Is for you 10 determine whether the article com
planned OF in fhis case comes within this ,efini-
N. 81 Tar
article concerns the plaintiff I'm the case IL - an
article OF this description, then IL will be libel
lous publication " thin the meaning OF the law
for which the plaintiff will be entitled TO a rem
edy. Ii you come to the conclusion that within
this understanding of what the Law j., % tar ss
the article relates TO the plaintiff il il not libel
lois, the defendant sill be entitled 70 a verdict
have already held while making rulings dur
ing the progress OF the trial, that the declara-
non an rS shIs case assuming the srticle 20
the plaintiff TO recover general dam
ages, and not damages for any special
injury which the plaintiff NAV have sustained in
consequence of the publication. Now, gentle
men, general damages in a case of this lcScrp-
ton means such damages a. would be the natural
consequence of the act complained OF. Ii. for
instance. the plaintiff In this case had suffered
any special damage, as You have heard ms ex-
plain, IL would have been nee esssry Tor him 10
have made a statement OF the particular injury
which he had suffered, and 20 sustain that
particular allegation by special proof. have
be 10 that no special damages OF that kind are i'm
this case and, therefore. not 20 be considered by
The jury. so that only such special dam
ages a. woul6 be the natural consequence
OF the publication, if il be lbellOus, Is
what the plaintiff is entitled 10 recover in the
present form OF action. Counsel have Gem
meEted upon another feature in an action of
libel, and that Is that the article itself must be
malicious as well a. injurious. and IL il this
malice uIon which the action is really founded
because IL there be no malice in the publication
the law will not sustain the action, although IL
may have resulted in an injury 10 an individual.
An innocent publ alton lie not 10 be made the
subject of an action Of this description. But, ii
in the opinion Of the jury, the article in this
case II lbellous in it, essentials the law would
inter from that fact that il was malicious. SO
that II must appear "a you in the first place that
the article is hbellOus. From that circumstance
you may infer that IL IL malicious, but
for the purpose OF mitigating the malice Of the
defendant. IL Is competent for the jury TO con-
slider the circumstances under which the publi-
cation WAS made, because YOU under
) and a. has already been explained 10 you by
counsel, malice in law L. susceptible OF a
meaning which II really has not in popular
phraseology, or in the common acceptation OF
that term. When We speak OF malice in law
we SIMPLY mean that the party intended 70 do
something against the law; something that the
law prohibits; or that he intended 20 DO wrong.
IL is not necessary that the jury should be
satisfied that the party was animated really by
spirit of luminosity or bitterness, but simply that
he intended 10 do something which amounts
70 what j. called a libel, or that he
has committed an act which is forbidden
by the law. Now, have permitted testimony
ia this case as 10 the circumstances under which
this libel was framed and published; and all the
testimony upon that subject may be considered
by the jury for the purpose of mitigating the
righteousness OF the publication. There is no
Justification plead in this case. That IL, the
defendant does not inteTpOse as a defense that
the contents OF the publication are true. So that
II you are satisfied that the article is libellous in
it, essentials, the plaintiff would be entitled 20 a
verdict for some amount, and the other cOnsid-
erations have just been alluding 90 would 20
simply 70 mitigate the amount OF damages.
And If il should appear that the conse-
quences which would naturally flow from
such publication were hot serious, and
that really there was no malice, no
no actual malice in publishing 10, the jury will
be at liberty TO reduce the damages 20 any eN-
tent their sound discretion may dictate, always
giving, however, the plaintiff some damage.
On the other hand, the converse of all these
would hold true. IL there was no explanation,
ii the Jury come 10 the conclusion, for instance,
that this rs a libellOus publication. and there Is
no atisiactory expanatiOn-nOthing 10 mitigate
the malice which the law infers from the publ
cation of a nbel-then the case would stand
upon footing yerC different from a c2,e IN
which such explanations are made: and the fury
would then be at liberty TO give. not only the
actual damage that would be the natural cOnse-
quences OF such passions, but also exemplary OF
punative damages in addition TO the actual dam
age. You will have the publication. together
la Hat.