Arizona citizen., 1874-05-16
A Libel Suit.

Wt have had occasion to, refer to'The
 96 Francisco Chronicle before this and
 <sply purpose now is to "point mor- ]k And H-adorn tale" by informing the
 &13sr that the newspaper referred to has 3z1a<fy succeeded in being brought up With rounCE turn at the bar of justice and 3as been nlulcted In the sum of S3000 for nub&ishdng a libel upon Mrs. HOwden, 8 FespectabLe resident of San Francisco. The public may not be aware of the cir c1usstances of the libel of which the zfoprietors of The Chronicle have just been found guilty by jury of their fellow lsstizens, and we therefore give the sub ljotf1ed statement as it appears in The S. F. |Hl1Ietin:
 Names Howden, an accomplished chem- 1itt married at middle life,. and a few i3nonths thereafter suddenly died. He '9<4S heavy drinker, and was, at times, in '<k1e habit of taking large doses of the most |9)6Werful drugs to neutraliZe the effects of |fte Spirits which he had taken He was .tt]d superintendent and took doses, at !<iines, which would have killed an Ordi- .148rF man in ten minutes. His death at ;<1ny time could not have greatly surprised those who for some time had closely ob- |sorVfd his habits. When it occurred, The IGbronicle published 8 statement calculat- lad % connect the plaintiff criminally in |the minds of the public with the sudden N4afh of her husband. Such report 1nieI1t have got into almost any newspa- pcr,sby mistake. But in this case it was zz1flde to appear that there was no miStake.. IG 1gas in evidence that, some time before, Df1e sOf the prOprietOrS of that paper had imfroperly sought to put himself on 4Afns of social intimacy with the plain fi{z1 and had. been rebuffeA Smarting under this Eepulse, he declared substan- taliy that he would get even with her. Another representative of the same paper hEed pretty nearly the same tactics with t8lative of plaintiff. This purpose to "get even," according to, the evidence, was eherished until a fitting opportunity should come.
 i That opportunity apparently came when H6wden died. The jury connected the publication made by The Chronicle with the threats which one of the proprietOrs had uttered. It was held to have been 8 malicious statement, and one which no Theory of mere oversight or carelessness could mitigate. The purpose to do wrong was traced back to the time when one of the defendants attempted to culti- rate social intimacy with the plaintiff and was repulsed for his effrOntry. The ffhel statement made on the death of Howden was the sequel. The jury, with clear view of these facts, assessed the eX- emplary damages at S3000. Instead of dnding one mitigating fact in favor of The Ehronlcle, as that paper claims, the yer dict of the jury is as clear and strong an 'adyerse expression for an inexcusabie li- bel as could we'll have been made,
 !! EThe Bulletin continuing on this subject editorially says:
 q II has happened more than once that the proprietOrs of The Chronicle have met with social rebufts, and they have been in the habit of "getting even" by maligning Hose who repulsed them. When one of the prOprietOrs forced himself into a house Hhere wedding was to be celebrated, the {ntruder was summarily elected. He "gOt |eyen" by ridIculing the household in his paper the next day. That scandalous li bel did not go into the paper by an. inad- Ferfence, but through a malicious design. Paragraphs have more than once been cooked up in The Chronicle designed to nuke girls ridiculous who declined ad- F1l1ceS made by the prOprietors Of that tHcet. Men have been pursued week after week, and assailed by the most malicious hisehoods, apparently in qualification of some personal resentment which ought never to have found it's way into any de- cent Journal. These facts have been pa f&1T to the community. The jury did in thIs case make just discrimination. Had there been nothing more than an inadver- kQ1l statement, such as is liable at times, t&f0agh mere oversight, to get into any Enper, probably no verdict would have ben rendered against The Chronicle, or D1 most, only one for nominal damages. 4>U5this was not the first, second, or third 1<tempt of the defendants to "get even." And the jury have rightly said: |" Ii you adopt this method of assailing persons }f you let your personal resentments cul- fninate in outrageous libels, you shall an- |BWer exemplary damages"
 3-fXe want no jurieS to hamper and crip- pie newspapers to gratify the malice of Iersons whose public acts have been criti- <1eed, and whose schemes have been eX- <DBcd. Neither do we want immunity for Rny part of the press which prefers to go Beyond the limits of legitimate journal Ism to gratify private resentments. If, in such a case, a woman is aSsailed and to thc great calamity of death there is added fAc Ereater one of a libel, the community XHIch has an interest in protecting an Jest and independent press has also 8
 f&H1Ount interest in protecting it's mem
 t<I nom Outrages perpetrated by press
 4fcH ls neither honest nor independent. V We only publish this matter because there are large number of unfortunates 111 1kis community who were induced to e>3IHcrfbe for The Chronicle last Summer and Who may still be ignorant of its char heteRs fiom seldom perusing its columns, NQ Ee have therefore felt it our duty as 8 rHl71fe Journalist to enlighten them.
 EETTER from Camp Grant of May 10, E1fujthes us the following news items: