The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-04-29
THE SWEENEY BAKER CASE.
TIE bVN hkzNksA DNNA ?
Case AdJudicated In the su.
preme Court Of Appeals, at
wheeling, saturdhy, April "a,
,Ja,, ". s.s.nev "a. L.ri, Baker and O.les.

l
lat. II a declaration in 4 libel suit set
forth In What Il drawn in the form Of one
count that the defendant on q given
day published = libel against him, con-
(, tanning 10 one part certain specified libel.
lous allegations and also containing in
another part certain other specified libel.
lous allegations Of an entirely different
character, this Ia nevertheless but one
count, It being entirely formal by the
rules Of the common Law TO eet forth In
this manner all the libellous allegations
published At one time.
2, To the two distinct libellous allega.
tions contained 10 such count, distinct
pleas could be filed.
8. Under our statute law no demurrer
will lie In any case because Of duplicity
In a declaration. F
4. Under the S,h section Of Article 8
OF the Constitution Of West Virginia,
which provides that "in prosecutions and
civil suits for libel, The truth may be
given 10 evidence; and II It shall appear
10 the jury that the matter charged as
libellous 10 true and was published with
good motives and for jdsti6able ends,
the verdict shall be for the defendant"
Held /. The truth, and that the pub.
lication was made with good intentions
and iustifabie ends can not be given 10
evidence under the general issue, but II
given In evidence under the plea Of iusti.
ication they may, though not amounting
TO full justification, be considered either
az mitigation or aggravation Us the
evidence may be strong or weak.
2. A general plea that the libellous
matter charged Is true and was publish.
ed with good motives and justi6able ends
Is not q good plea when the libellous
matter Is general charge.
8. In such case the plea TO be good, must
specify the particular facts which show
the general charge TO be true, and must,
unless the declaration shows It on It's
face, further allege the particular facts
which show that the end for which the
publication was made was justifable, and
Il would be Insufficient with out 20 doing
10 allege generally that the motives were
good and the end iusti6able.
4. These rules apply equally TO suits
for common law libels and for statutory
suits for the publication OF insulting
words.
s. A statutory suit for insulting words
can be brought though the words used
were such "a would sustain suit at com.
mon law and though they were published
or written.
Q. A plea ought to be rejected which Is
an allegation OF the truth OF distinct
portion Of the libellous charges contained
| In count for 4 common law libel, and
that II was published with good motives
and for jusdfable ends, when the portion
Of the charges thus justified was not at
common law libellous, as such portion Of
the charge inserted in the declaration
must be regarded as surplusage. But
such plea ought TO be received II plead to
such portion Of the charges In q count in
a suit brought under the statute for In.
sulting words as no distinct portion Of
such charges can be treated by the court
as surplusage.
Z. An editor Of newspaper has no
peculiar privilege Of publishing what is
injurious to another. BE can only pub
lish with impunity that which any other
person would have an equal right TO pub
lish In newspaper.
s. An editor oi newspaper or any other
citizen has right to publish 10 . news
paper any allegation, true or ialae, with
good motives or maliciously in reference
to the physical or mental qualifications
OF candidate for an Office in the gilt Of
the people.
9. But II a publication be made in a
newspape. Of such q candidate with
reference to his moral qualifications
which 10 libellous In Its character, the
party making such publication may be
held liable therefor In suit Tor libel,
unless he can prove the charges made 70
be true. It will not In such case be sufi.
cient to prove that the party publishing
had good reason to believe and did be-
lieye them to be true, rs publication oi
this character Is not even conditionally
privileged. From the publication Of
such libellous charges the law implies
malice as well as damages to the plaintiff
and the jury may therefore on proof oi
the publication only, render . verdict for
substantial damages.
10. Comments may be made In news.
paper on the acts or conduct of q candi.
dale for an office In the gift Of the people
with impunity II such comments are
made bonafide and not maliciously, even
though they be unjust, provided that the
acts or conduct commented on are in fact
what tbey are represented 10 be in the
publication.
II. There Ia copied by the Clerk in the
record q certificate, signed by the Judge,
stating that demurrer 10 q declaration
had been filed and overruled by the Court,
but that the Clerk had not entered the
filing OF the demurrer on the record. Thil
me morandnm is no part Of the record.
l2. Ifa rejected plea Il, by order OF the
Court, made u part Of the record and the
order book shows its rejection was except.
ed TO, the Supreme Court Of Appeals will
review the action Of the Court In reject
ing such plea, though no formal bill ol
exceptions was taken TO the rejection oi
such plea.
IS. II motion in arrest Of iudgmen,
and motion for . new trial are made
simultaneously they may properly b
both acted upon by the court, as under
such circumstances the motion in arres
Of Judgment cannot be regarded As an ad
mission that the verdict was unobiection
, able.
ii. Several pleas are fled and seyera
issues made on them, and the reeort
! states that the jury was sworn to Try th'
issue Joined and 6nd verdict which ID
responsive to all the,issues, and judgmen
Is entered thereon-this court will mo-
revere such judgment because Of th'
/, manner 10 which the record states th'
Jury was sworn.
is. The record states that genera
!, replication Ia fled TO . special plea ant
issue Joined, bat no written replication
appears In the record.
This is no error for which an appellate
] court would revise judgment entered oi
verdict.
: 10. The Supreme Court Of Appeals vii
Q not reverse the Judgment ot Circuit
Court refusing 10 grant new trial in
I libel suit because the damages are ex'
t eesslve unless they are 90 enormous a. I,
!, furnish evidence Of partiality, passion
+ corruption or prejudice on the part Of tn
jury.