The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1878-01-03

cation IN all civil actions. Nor can We
believe that thereby ii VAS intended that
the legislative power OF the state was for
ever deprived of comforting the right upon
a defendant in 4 civil action OF libel 10
plead the truth Of the words Oh rged as 4
iull and complete defense. To assert 9TH
erwise would be 10 assert the Constitution
abridged and curiailed the liberty OF the
press in civil actions more than the COM
mon law-more than III provisions OF the
constitutions OF other states. TIE uIoCltlca-
ton of the common law by the con>titU-
ton We cvnstrue in favor of the liberty Of
the press. not against il. To conclude 9TH
erwise would be to ignore the popular sen
timents in Kansas at the adoption OF the
constitution and to assume that the sue
cessful contestants in behalf of free press
were forgetiul in their victims OF its power
ful Influences in their behalf or had unwi
tingly deprived themselves OF rights Al
low, in England under the sway Of des-
potic monarchs and the rule Of arbitrary
Judges. The idea is increditable. The
constitution of Rhode Island provides III
all trials Tor libel. both civil and criminal,
the truth. unless published from malicious
motives. shall BE- sufficient defense TO the
pNE>tH Anu ~ va' ANAN o." 49,
state that the truth OF the charge is a good
defense in civil action for libel. Perry
vs.. X. l.. 262). From our REVIEW Of the
authorities, the provision of our cons'itu-
lion. the civil and criminal codes, We de-
duce these important principles;
Fra-In all criminal prosecutions the
truth of the libel Is no defense, unless 1t
was for public benefit that the matters
charged should be published, or in other
words that the alleged lIbelous matter was
! true in fact and Was published Tor JusiIfa-
| bic ends, but in all such proceedings the
| jury have the right TO determine AT their
discretion the law and the facts
S.eond.-ln all civil actions Of libel
brought by the party claiming 10 have been
DETAINED, when the de endant alleges and
| establishes the truth Of Tie matter charged
as defamatory, such defendant l. Justified m
law and exempt from all civil responsible
| ~. In such actions the jury must receive
| and accept the direction of the court a 10
| the i,w Under this view the court below
INSTRUCTED the jury on the trial in a very
material point, and very properly ON
attention being again called to the matter
by a motion Tor new trial, granted such
| motion and set the case again Tor hearing.
| The instructions given might have been
applicable in a criminal proceeding where
the motive of the publication is important,
and where the jury have the right 10 deter
mine the law a. well as the fact; but were
erroneous in civil action, where the facts
charged were proven in Justification. The
ins ructions assum Il that the truth Is moi
a iuil and complete defense unless II " e
shown to have been published for good pur-
poses and Unsuitable ends. This is not cor
rect. Ii the charges made by the defendant
are true, however malicious, nu action lies
Root vs. King, : Cow. 613, 1852; Townsend
on Islander and libel, sec. 2ll Fo>s VS.. Hill
dreth, 10 Allen, 76; Baum VS.. Clause, !
Hill 1876; Stark ON Stand. 229; Rayne VS.
TAYLOR, ii La. Ann. 4O6. The plaintiff in
error contends that the instructions coulG
not have been prejudicial to the defend
ont In error, as the plea Of justitica
ton was insufficient in form and there
fore the district court erred in granting ;
new trial. The answer among other thing
alleged that the matters charged As defam
atory were tue" No motion was filed II
the case to make the answer more definite
or certain; no demurrer was present't
thereto, no oi.jec ion taken to the evidence
of the truth OF the charcr, a. we can ascer
tain and from the record we must assume
ia It the case wa. tried on the theory tina
the defendant was attempting to show "A
Justification the truth of the publication
and we NAV assume that the evidence
tended to prove the trath of the publication
Under these circumstances the point nov
made bv counsel OF the plaintiff a
, TO the immateriality of the said IN
: structions is not well taken. The cas-
, was heard by the district court on the sup
: position tn II the plea of justification wa
= sufficiently formal-the instructions al IT.
, court discuss what L. necessary To- he -howi
. 10 make the truth full justification, an'
, the jury having been mi>dir cted in In
: hurry of the trial no error was committee
, in setting aside the verdict. Had the ac
I lion OF the court been otherwise, on prop
: Application We would have reversed III
: Judgment If anv delay has resulted to tn
: plaintiff in error in obtaining speedy tria
since, il has been caused by the tendency q
this proceeding in error in this court wher
E it was brought by the plaintiff.
D For this action the defendant in erro
I was no; responsible. The order Of the dl-
r trict court setting aside the verdict Of III
: jury in the case and granting new trial !
e affirmed All the Justices cUncurring.