The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-03-06
make 5000. The case will be argued to.

|
day.
William H.. Thurston, a u. s. Gauger,
charged by u revenue agent under the di-
rection of the Inspector of the Intern al
Revenue, with willfully omtting to re-
gauge certain casks Of spirits, had his
case continued till next Friday, in the
U. s. Court yesterday.
Alexander Won Garay, of the German
Opera Troupe, arraigned on Thursday
before Squire Anthony as defendant in
twelve attachment suits. will have a
final disposition of his case next Monday.
II. q. Bowen was the additional juror
obtained in the Egner trial Yesterday.
In the case of j. B. Conklin against
THE STAR Publishing Company, an ac-
| tion for libel, in which Conklin
sought vindication in the sum of 500, 600,
Judge Tilden instructed the jury that
ii the statements Of the article were not
true the publication would be slanderous
and detamatory, importing wilf1l and
wrongful purpose, and it would follow
as legal consequence that the plaintiff
was entitled to recover such damages as
he had sustained: If they were true, the
defendant was entitled to verdict.
There were Two charges in the article,
one In which the plaintiff was charc-
terized as a "shyster and pettifogger,"
and these words tending to bring par
ty into disgrace and approach are action
able. and unless they were applicable to
the plaintlifhe would be entltled to re-
cover. The other charge imputed the
taking OF money from Captain Hicks in
fraudulent manner, and ii the plaintiff
was guilty of this chicanery he was en-
gagged in the commission of an extremely
disreputable and fraudulent act. If he
was innocent of these charges, the impu-
tu q
upon his character, which would en-
title him to damages. The burden Of
proving the truth of these charges con-
tained in the article was thrown on
the defendant.
The presumption of law is that where
words in themselves actionable have
been spoken or written, the purpose was
malicious and unjustitiable; and where
the defendant takes on himself to prove
the truth of the charges, that under
standing carries with 1t the obligation to
offer the proof, and the amount of proof
should be such us to fairly preponderate
Whether it did SO prepOnderate is ques-
ton which addresses itself TO the sound
discretion of the jury.
1t was suggested the defendant was
engaged in the pursuit OF publishing
newspaper. and that he honestly believed
the statements to be true, and published
them in good taitn. The question wheth-
er this formed justification for writing
the article is not one now for consldera-
ton, having Deen disposed OF upon the
pleadings.
Ii the charges made in the publication
were not true, it would be material on
the question of damages to inquire
whether the defendant believed them to
be true. He is u public journalist, exer-
cising high and important calling, one
that is influential in the formation Of
public opinion, and If the jury found
that in The exercise Of this calling the
defendant had reason to believe in the
truth Of the contents OF the article, they
were at liberty to consider that as cir
cumstance in estimating the amount OF
damages, if they found the plaintiff was
entitled to recover any.
In considering the question Of dam
ages, the best rule would be for the jury
to award such as they believed would
make the plaintiff whole, to compensate
him for what he had lost by reason OF
the act complained of, having regard to
the standing and social position of the
party. He would also be entitled to the
expenses attending the vindication of
his rights. The purpose of the law was
to afford every individual an adequate
remedy. The jury would be authorized,
in addition to awarding compensation to
the party, to give an additional sum as
exemplary damages, in cases of special
aggravation, which would operate as an
example on others, and as a restraint
and punishment on the party offending.
But in the application of this rule, great
care and judgment should regulate their
deliberations, and, above all, they should
not allow DrpiudiCe or OaSSiOn to iutiu.
ence them.
The jury returned verdict for the de-
fendant.