, 1876-07-09

The defendant received four letters from Rock
ford: One purported TO hare been written BY l..
Blodgett, and the othss BY N, IL Carpenter. They
we're opened by the defendant, and partially read,
and referred to Mr: Martin. assistant editor, who
for publication, which was done, and the articie
published ' on ~ he following day. It will be ohserv
tlon from coEresponpent Of the Times, as 1t pur-
ported to bs, hut 1t was composed and written by
one Of the editors In the Office OF the defendant.
Was It proper IN mitigation OF damages to allow
! the defendant to prove that the information upon
which the article was based Was received by
him in due course Of mail from personsreaiding in
| the same town with the PLAINTIFF
We are satisfied that under the decisions Of the
courts of last resort in England and in this country
Spencer, 3 Eng. Com: Law, 211, which was IN
action OF slander, and the defendant offered to
prove in mitigation Of damages that the words
named In the declaration were communicated to
her BY third person. Chief Justice Gibbs, in an
nonnclng the opinion Of the Court, said: :" You
t. ss hs ssmsss sy sCos II that
third pesson- fon might, under one Of your pleas,
have given in evidence that at the time you made
and ats. sagnr Is your authorities BY 20 doing
you gave the plaintiff action against them AS yo1
not propose toproye this your Justification a,sils
to the plaintiff is ttated faet OF the defend
ants own knowledge. and she cannot when called
to answer fo5 it say another person told me go
II an action be brought agntnst A tor calling B
thief, is defense for unde. the general issne
to TO- pEoss that he was teld 70 by G. is answoEable
In Hotchkiss VS.. Oliphant, 2 Hill, $40, which
waa IN action for libel, the defendant offered in
evidence IN mitigation Of damages article pub
iished II another newspaper which WAS alluded to
In the hbeloss article, with view to show the ex-
tracts from i were correct The Court said: "1n
Mopes ss- Weeks. Wend., CSC. the eircnrnatance
ncatsd The flanderous charge to the defendant rus
not allowed even in mitigation Of damages, aud
Fose 81 sss' I t ESq5 q n1oaon "a
adoption Of the original calumny, which must be
defended in the taue wayae II invented by the de-
she truth Of the Charge. and when eaed on % By he
aegnered party the Publisher should Be held stict
y te the proof. II he chooses to brcoms the in
ing The trouble Of inqaisns into the truth of what That
the law, which is as ttudios to protect the charac-
ter ~ the property Of the citlzcn hold him to this
Il Bodwei Vs. Snow, Pick 80, the same
question aroee, and the Court said: "It
offered by the defendants, tcnling to prove that
the words spoken and charges made were true In
order to show that the wife Believed what she sud
Pick, i. In Kngcr rs, Cobct, Gilmnn. which !
was al action Of slnndcr, the defendant, in niti
CATION Of damages offered to prove facts and cir
cuulstanccs tending to show grounds Of suspicion,
but not amounting to actnal proof OF the change
The Court held the evidence not admissible, and
announced the Flte tQ4k TnefE u uE1enu1uf does /
not Justify be may mitigate damages in two Ways
only. First, by showing the general bad character
of the plaintiff, and, second by showing any cir
shehan Vs. Collins, 20 III. which a. IN sc.on
for libel where the general issue was plsaded, il
persons had previously, Published the hbclous
.rticle could not be admitted in mitigation Of
6a%uess and the rule announced in Russr vs
We appreheud it cannot be suceessfuliy denied |
ta;.n taet t6s tsadSasy @ ei e !stts1 ,i, rsad ia
Ssous atsle 'h'Es f. e9es
written and predtcated upon the statements the let
Ind circumstance. which showed that the plaintiff
lad been guilty Of fornication. IT, then, the tend
'noy OF the offered evidence vas to psore the trath
announced in the Ruger case.
The fact that the defendant admitted, in connec-
ion with the proposition to read the letters in er-
lcnce that they Herc forgeries and the statements
hey contained were fslset did not chaDSe the prin
iple npon which they were excluded. Upon this
ssTs u Ss esnat
'zove In mitigation any circumstance which tended
o prove the truth Of the charge, although he e1-
tessly disasoweda justification and admitted the
Suppose the letters had been published in one OF
he newspapers Of Chicago and defendant had sub
ue announced In the Shahan case, he wou1d not
ave been permitted to mitigate damages by I
rowing a psior publication IN anoshet Jour
damages that the 1ibeons article WAS taken from,
ct be permitted 70 prove the facta upon which The
rticle WIS based were eom:ounic,lted to him by T.
ttera received IN due course os n1t1. It Is not
ficuEt matter for the conductors Of tho prcss to
pom pris4te character before giving II publicity,
i'd good morals and common deccncy alike dc. =
and that they should do or abide the eonse.
1ences: rigid Observance Of requirement Of
liz character By and juries will go far in the
rection OF Kidding the press Of much of that reck
s. ealnmny heaped upon pryate character by q q
'idence was properly excluded froln the jnry.
1t Is aaeo insisted by the counsel for the defendant
ndtng to chow that the publication waa made IN | a
e manner customary III the management OF all =
wspapers, and not in reckless and unusual map
,sition ASSUMED and il our investigation OF the =
lestion we hare been unable to hnd any: OF
1t would in onr Judgment be establishing dan ar
ton for libel could shield himself behind the st
Ct that the prc.s Of the country had so iardc- ia
nerated and departed from correct line of duty I
di:segnrdfns private character that such dis =
gard had ripened into =. castom 1t r. de- | AZ
1rable factthat sha managers Of thepress haTe | an
come exceedingly reckless ln the exercise Of the
Eat power shey po4aes* in this country aud while ~
" are entitled to full protection in the enjoy ~ 0
mt Of each and every legal right their ability By ~
rights Euura1lteed by the law 10 tbs citizen,to CO
,teetton IN his character, as well az property,
1not be sanctioned BY the Courts p
is also nrsed that sae l1dg9ent shoald n be r. 81
,dant to read in evidence retr1ction Of the
e. While . fnll and complete retraetion mar G.
IL evidence in initiation Of damaget, j
wc undersand The rule be t,at the retfaction L.
st be 1nade 10 Immediate after the pnb- Sn
.tton ., q 1s, tae lbi dsa 70 neSsnn
'ae ,r r. g.s.e ~, hnras.r dn1a - ~, *, "a
=. The defendant was served with process = ~ <
the 2}kh day Of May, the rcsxactton mas not - -
31isbed Entif the Hrh day OF June, ten dnys after
brought, Had the defendant published the =
Eaction when he received information through I
press direct from Rockford that the 1Iticie pub
I'd was false. such would have hecn comn4trnt Isl
dencc in mitigation Ut laMage*~ But while the vi
endsnt so~ in the papers, within a. day or s1o, :.
the Ube1ons article was Published that it Was tru
10, he did not 1t. once retract, but, appears. I
the retractou finally published, sent person fau
rockford to fQYektEate. who left Chicago under IN