, 1876-07-09

tae t'peeseon that be wonfd ana the statements
contained 3 IN the letters corroborsted by tacts
Me ass axase .; no authority that would permit
a. defsnnsnt after suit brought to speculate upon
sas cnaiees Of proving the truth OF the libclpus
at,e'e ,n ana fHlinx in that then ANIL OF s. retrac-
traction came too 1ste to BE- regarded MI nY thn
re: este, and it WAS not error 70 exclude It.
painss ,ixtb that tas caa1s ssd i
ioliows: 1T the jary s.,onld %adIa 6,a w1' Is. =
defendant guilty then The iary. n 'a as,ess. sas
by rcason OF the publication Of tho srtielc r,nn.
planned ol; aht! in determining the amount of dam
a asG , e 1nEg nay consider The wealth etanain
that the wealth and standing Of The defenda7t 49,
proper snb]ects for the confederation of the i'm
it is ttgrd that in arriving ii the oompensafo1 ~
plaintiff Was entitled to receive Tof the fn;ntV ~
hicted the jnry had no rghtfo take into coztidea-
ant While it may BE- true the plafntine recovery
should be confined to the injury received regard
leg. OF the ability OF the defendant 70 pay, md ths
aud alike respond in damages for ali wrongs in-
cted IN actions of sfandex and libel ret e<adencn
OF ne defendants wealth rank, and standing In
society was pertinent 70 the iseAe for the purpose
Of showing tue extent o the injury received by tho
plaintiff On account OF the publication Of the libel
The proposition is 10 self- -erident rhst argument
to demonstrate it is u.eleas that worls uttered aY
man ct wealth. influence, and standing in soei-
~ upon the chasaCter than the same declafations
made by an obeeute person The dansgcs tesult-
ing from the publication OF Hbe1ous article in IN
means aud ttle standing and inhuenco @ cannot - % 30
compared to the publication Of q like article
in paper fortified BY wealth and influence which
paper IN the hantis Of thousands Of daily readers
uhe degree OF injury, to some extent at least.
ns 81 9h the fortune md stand
attention OF the jury to thcse considerations waa
proper. and the principle involved hss found y
sanction :. M and e!car recognition IN the Courts
II ls Also urged that the damages arc excessive.
The Judgment rendered in this case is large, it Is
true Put IN actions Of tort 1t Is not enough to ay
The coa.t, Or more than we would hax haxye gwen
hsd the Law intrnstcd US with liking tho
amount: As has been we'll said VT il the tudr-
which il TO aset1s the danages n actions for per:
sonn torts and injuries" The rule upon the sub
ifs f e. Ms ksnt = ,h
Vs. Southwick. John, ~, in these words: The
damages must bc 80 excessive to strike mankind
able and outrageous aud such a rnnnifoatly show
the jury to hare been octuated bI passion, par
tiality. prejudice, Or corrupton.'s This rule is
nor without precedent in our own Court
It has not been declared in law rhat sha11 bc tho
measaro OF damages in cases of this character. Tha
amount 70 Dc rseotesed must necessarily depend TO
conceded 70 6c Young Indy whose character il
anuFt enep!taou " 4ti1eoltN, anu YET ehe was
charged in the 1ibelons article with having been
guilty Of fotnfcAtion. A charge more div
ss!e p.ospefy me o. a'PPenesi PP6e ons could I'd
not hare been made The accusation, although
gnfounded, published broadcast, rs Il VAS ail over
the country In the vast circulation of the 1f,3est
paper perhaps extensively read than any other
III the country could not do otherwise than serious7
II injnre the character Of the plaintiff, 1t is idle to
talk Of money repairing or compcnsating an injury
serious and grave in its character is this These
were some Of the considerations, no doubt, that
led the Jury to return large verdict anu whils
the Judgment is large, yet, under all thecircun1+
stances Of the case, We see no substantial reaee1
for disturbing IT. j.. ...
The judgment will be afirmed. =,
JUDGE BREgaB
delivered the following minority opinion:
lam Of opinion that the ret1actton Of the charge
made by the defendant should k3ve been given to
the jurJ, and they permitted to pronounce apoa
its character. II sincere, the dcfcndan! should
have the benefit, n tending to mitigate tho dam
ases> and they should have considered the circum-
stances under which It was made. II is never too
too late to repent / am further Of opinion the
damages are excessive as assessed by the jury.
JUDGE D1CkEY's VIEWS
concur In the views expressed by Mr. Justice
Breese. think all the facts should be allowed to
90 before the jnry for their consideration on tb-
nuestiOn of eypmn1arY f}emarcs