Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-12-09

ridlcule-if done muliciously-is a libel
Applying this definition to the language used
as SGT forth i'll the declaration, there is nc
room for doubt that the words stated i'll all
| the inherent counts of the declaration ol
| DIVISIONS Of 1t, are hbelous and If Used
mallciuusly, subject their author to liability
Tor them by way Of damages. We therefore
assume that the plaintiff has shown that the
language set forth Is lluelous. The next
| thing for him to prove as--that the de.
lendant published them. Publication OF a
| libel is giving 1t circulation. This ii done az
well by composing OF writing it, that 1t may
he published, III publication follow, Id by clrcu.
latllig 1t afterwards. The wri,er of Il liDeluus
| article for publication in newspaper ui
| otherwise the ptIsull. Or corporation which
| ISSUES 1t to the world and, every one wlu
| afterwards crculates 1t, Is liable. under the
law,to damages to All asgreved party-iI from
| the facts 1t appear That he Is entitled u
| recover any. In this case the allegation OF
| the plaintiff Ii, that the defendant composed
or wrote these several lbelous articles tol
| circulation through the columns OF the
| EVERY EVENING, newspaper, u sheet printed
III Wilmington daily, and shown by proof t.
nave had circulation of about 1000 IL day
besides an extensive exchange with othui
newspapers i'll and out OF the state and ht
| presents you with several wltneases
to prove that fact, all of whom
state that the defendant is, and wus
at tine time OF the publication
the edltor-in-chef Gas they call hmJ of that
| paper. 1t Ii shown, by their testimony, thai
| the several articles from which the ilbelou.
| language ID extracted, We're editorial articles.
and published i'll the editorial Columns
| Although two of the three witnesses, Bell
and dunphry, testified that they occasionally
contributed editorial articles to the paper IA
| the absence OF the defendant vet each
| speaking for himself, testified that he did not
| write those III question. They also went
farther and stated that they did not know
| VINO wrote them. lii ANSWER to the counsel
Tor the defendant, they stated That, some.
tunes, other articles than those written By the
edltor-in-cn!ef, the defendant, and their occi.-
| slonal ones, were written by others, but they
did not know who those others were I'M,
apparently deplurablc want of knowledge on
the part oil the WITNESSES above named Ia
explained, however, by the fact that the
editorials, when written, pass into the hands
OF one whose duty IL Is to adjust or arrange
them for publication Iii the paper and that
| person is the wltness, r. Harry Young. who
states that, when received. they aro no ar
ranged by him for the compositurs, that IL.
the persons who set the type. He did not
know who was the author of them but he
did know that they came into his hands by
due COURSE to be- forwarded to the type-setter
and thence to the PRESSES. 1t is not his duty
be that lie did not know who wrote those
llbels. So that you have this important fact
Without dispute. that these editorials were
written for publication. This usage proved
by Young, settles that question; Tor editors
must be acquainted with what 1t il the pruc.
tee to do With their illusions. Copies of the
editions of the EVERY EVENING, or rather
numbers OF the editions in which the libuls
were published have been exhibited to Won
and proved and admitted by the defendant .
the publication ID therefore proved. 1t has
also been testified before You by Witnesses
examined III support OF the llinuendoes IN the
declaration. that the llbulons words refer to
the plaintiff. Iii support Of its case, there
fore, under the plea uf not guilty, the plaintiff
presents you with this Court charge. thar
the words III the declaration are liDelous
with uucontroyerted proof that they were
published to the world i'll EVERY EvENING.
newspaper; with the testimony OF Young
that editorial matter sent to him is under
stood to be for publication and receives it :
by that of Bell and llunphry that these pub
LEGATIONS are portions OF editorial matter and
by other proof, Ms well as theirs, that the
subject of the llbelous attacks was the plain
TIN. One thing only Is further necessary for
the plaintiff to do, under the plea of mot
guilty, aud that Is to show that the defend
ant wrote the editorials containing those
hbels. He has offered you proof upon that
point, and the question lis Is it, Ill your
uplnlon, sufficient to tiX the defendant with
the authorship If not, then you must
render verdict for the defendant of mot
guilty and that ends the case. That proof
Is, that the defendant WAS the editor In-chiel
of the EVERY LvENISH; that Is, the person
who wrote the chief part of It's editorial mat
ter and that those who occasionally wrote
such matter did not compose the llbels. As
to the other persons who sometimes wrote.
lpp sI,uI. a Al
they wrote them. The caSe You are trying
being civil action, we have to say to yuu
that, III settling this question of authorship,
your duty Is TO look ut the testimony with
respect to 1t and weigh the fact OF edltOrship
ln'chief and composer of most of the edl-
turlul matter. and the denial al the co editors
that they wrote any of them against the
statement that sometimes Others wrote edl-
tOrlals for EVERY EVENING; it you lind the
former OF more value than the latter. that is
OF greater prepOnderallce OF weight then you
may conclude that the defendant Is the author
ol the llbel5 Tor, the verdict of Jury iii
civil actions ought to be Tor the side where
the greatest weight of evidence H. so CON
Guiding, the pantllf, if there were no other
plea iii the case but that of mot guilty,
would be entitled to your verdict.
feel it my duty here to mention to you an
additional tact that entirely escaped my attcn-
ton at the time; l suppose 1t was Withdrawn
from the CASE ut the moment by something
else that occurred here, because it is some
thing which consider of such Importance
til caullut puss 1t without comment. Ii
appears that the COUNSEL for the plaintiff pro
duced i'll evidence as one of the newspapers
containing TINS alleged llDeluus matter that vi
the edition of December llth, 1853; it is that
paper III an editorial article in which this cor
puratlon IL characterized as "a wildcat com
pamy,' and Ill which reference is made to
Insurance Journals The editorial matter Is
thus 1.-The Insurance journals which make
the study of the character and condition OF
Insurance companies their specially, &c. An
article referred to i'll that editorial as an
extract from the New York Spectator refers to
the defendant in this case aS the author OF
these lIbels. Now, We say to you, that this is
evidence furnlsdeh by the defendant. If he
wrote these editorials himself, to this Jury
that he Is the author of them. MIR Cruasdale
Is proved to be the editor.in-ciiief of that
paper; If you are satisfied then that the
oditor-inc chief saw that editorial or wrote it,
i'll the absence OF any proof that anybody else
wrote them, then the editOr-iu-Ghlcf has ait
nonnced himself to this iury as the author of
these lbels.
The right of tt plaintiff to verdict in all
action to recover damages, as this ii. implies
that he is entitled to recover some but now
much depends upon the proof in the citse
III most instances. This much OF the charge,
now being delivered to You, will be treated
of hereafter. We will now consider the other
dctenses set by the defendant
The plaintiffs allegation is that each of
these several libels was published by the
defendant mallciuusly with intent to iniure
the plaintiff in it, good name. fame and
credit and bring it into public inlamy and
Disgrace, Nc, and this Is contained in each of
the several five counts of his declaration. To
this the defendant replies generally, to an
the counts, the several pleas above men
toned, which confess the allegation set forth
but seek to avoid the consequences by ASSERT
ing matter OF defense which the plaintiff
usually denies (as has been done in this case
offering to submit the question to the arbitra-
nent of jury. The parties are therefore at
issue not only upon the aforesaid plea of not
guilty. but also upon tho other defenses set
up by the defendant, which to repeat are that
the wurdo were
/. substantially true, and that the same
We're published properly for public intorma-
ton. and with no malicious or mlSchieyou5
motives
2. That 'they were matters of common re-
port and that tho said defendant was engaged
III printing and publishing the newspaper in
said declaration mentioned, and was under an
obligation to the public to print and publish
such common report for the information and
protection of persons interested in obtaining
Insurance. These two pleas are not valid ones
and ought to have been demurred to but
Issue having been taken upon them, we must
treat them not as defenses to the action, but
rather as pleas in mitigation of damages.
s. "Ihat the statements made in the said
supposed libel at and before the printing and
publishing thereof, were true"
4. That the statements made in the said
supposed libel at and before tine printing and
publishing thereof, We're true aud the same
were published properly for public Informs
ton and with no malicious Or mischleyuus
A .....l - L. =.