The Portland daily press., 1875-05-07
TERMS $500 PER ANNUM, IN ADVANCE.

rect payment for votes, but it is difficult to con-
ceive how such large sums could have Oeen
paid out with an honest purpose. Whether
the election was carried or not by this corrup-
ton, there certainly was corruption, and cor
ruption ia the interest of the Atbol & Enfield
Railroad; and how vital matter the purity of
elections is 10 a community like ours he hardly
need enlarge upon. In this country we submit
to popular vote great questions of public con-
cerD, aud it is of vital importance that voters
shall be free from all corrupting and debasing
influences II voters are pt cunlarily influenced.
elections so conducted are wrong and danger
Gus 10 the community.
Taking these fae.s as he found them, Judge
Endicott said that part Of the alleged nbel has
proved TO Ee true but it is necessary for the de-
fendant to prove the whole or else the
charges must fail to the ground. he
considered that the leading charges In
the libel were that Willis Phelps plds
for the city job," 'openly buys votes, "lob6es
bill through the legislature" and tnat, having
despoled the city of large sum of money, be
is using it TO obtain more" He did not thlok
the defendant had offered auv evidence on this
last charge, that the plaintiff received large
part Of the cIty's money himself The evi-
d ence shows that the money was expended on
the road.
In regard to the claim of the defendant that
the occasion in question was an occasion or
privilege, he thought that declaration prior
to the election, made in good faith for proper
purpose, may be privileged, but the law does
not put this cloak around a man TO protect him
without requiring certain proof. There Is no
proof that Mr.. Bowles received information
which led him to make the statement which
be made.
In regard 10 express malice, the evidence
showed hat Mr.. Bowles had been engaged in
controversy with these parties; had had DIS
cussions with them, and in one instance had a
somewhat heated personal discussion with the
plaintiff at a meeting of the Longmeadow Rail-
road direct ors. The republication OF the al
legged lbelous articles is very decided proof
that there was express malice as defined by the
law.
The ella IN of the privilege of the occasion
having failed for the reasons stated there must
be finding for the plainuH. The question
then arises in regard to the amount OF damages
which must be according TO what the plalntln
seems entitled 10 receive. He bad found that
the plaintiff was party TO the corruptng IN
huenees connected with securing legislation IN
which be was interested, and carrying elections
which affected his interests, and the question 10
decide was, how much should man receive
who had done this? In cousd erng that ques-
ton, he had come to the CONCLUSION that Judg-
ment should be entered for the plaintiff, aud
that the damages should be placed at 500.
Both parties in the suit have taken numer-
Gus exceptions to the rulings of the court, and
both will carry the case up to the full bench.
The plaintiff will also commence Immediately
another suit against the Republican, again
claiming damages of 100000, for the repub-
licaton of the alleged lbels n the daily and
weekly editions after the election, which they
were originally ints nded to influence. This
silt will also include several squbs about BOSS
Phelps" which have been published at differ
ent times in the Republican, and which are
claimed to have been purely malicious. The
new suit will be tried by jury.