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


nor 30 far as they know by the other persons
spoken of by them who sometimes wrote
editorials, and that the publication manager
sent all matter delivered to him for publica-
ton to the type setters-l say if you are salts
ned by these facts, and the knowledge an
editor must have of what i'd done with his
etfusions, that the defendant wrote the arti-
Giles of libel, then other questions are to be
considered; but if you are not you should
say so by a verdict of mot guilty. which, as
have said will terminate the case. But if
you shall be satisfied that the defendant COM
posed these libels for publication, then YOU
are to determine whether the charges made
are true. II they are true, and We're published
Tor the sole and proper purpose OF public in
formation, he should have your verdict but
If they were really published by him
mallclously, that ID, not for an honest, fair
purpose, and not properly and solely for pub
lie information, but from ill will to the PLAIN
tliiS, and for the purpose of gratifying his
personal maevolence against it, and to do it
mischief and injury, he should not, but you
should lind against him. For although the
truth Is u perfect defense against an alleged
libel, yet the Law will not allow any one to use
1t against another to shield his own malevo-
lence, but on the contrary will punish him
for his malice. If you are satisfied that the
charges made by the defendant are not true,
or rather were not true at the time they were
made, then your verdict should be that he is
guilty.
line counsel for the defendant has urged
upon us the consideration that if your verdict
should be against their client, you should be
governed III the assessment of damages by
Instruction from the Court which we are asked
TO give, that as the defendant was the editor
oil u newspaper he should be treated differ
emily from mere individual who publishes a
libel, We cannot so instruct you, The pub
Usher, even OF newspaper, Is entitled to no
immunity Tor disseminating libel although
he might claim to be under some obligation
to expose fraud how then can a mere
editor be- who is simply employed to supply
the editorial matter for the press. But this
idea OF immunity of any sort, because of being
publisher OF editor of newspaper, il u wholly
fallaclous one and ii allowed, would as we
thlnk, be very dangerous i'll any community.
Instead OF libel suit now and then, we should
have them continually, and a great many
more nlne days trials would be- held i'll the
courts. Every man has the right guaranteed
10 nm by the constitution to PRINT upon any
subject, being responsible for the abuse of
that liberty; that is he must take care to print
tue truth aud that with good motive where
1t concerns the reputation OF individuals, or
corporate bodies. II he print hbelous matter
mnllciously, though it be true, he is answera-
Bile Ill damages for so doing, as well. though
OF COURSE not to tue same extent, If he
printed falsehoed maleiously. This law
applies to publishers and editors as well as to
other individuals and they have no privileges
III this state not common to everybody else.
Ii lis unnecessary to enlarge upon this sub
1ect II Is sufficient to give You the law for
Your guidance
Should you, after fair and honest delbera-
ton upon the law and the testimony i'll this
CASE, find that the defendant wrote these
llDels for publication and that they are not
true, the plaintiff will be entitled to come
damages at your hands whether he has proved
any or not ; for the law implies malice where
the llbeluus matter is false, and the jury must
give the plaintiff damages and where 1t is
shown that the defendant was actuated by
any express malice that in wicked design to
injure the plalnttf-the jury is warranted
III gong to great length i'll assessing them.
Also, where the words published are proved to
be true, and yet they were published Tor the
purpose Of lnjuring plaintiff from nlallc-
lous motive, he Is entitled to damages. And
i'll all cases where Il plaintif is.entltled to
damages for libel he is entitled to recover
all he can prove he has sustained by the act
OF the defendant whether the publication be
mallclouslN made on not. Ii therefore, i'll
this case. you are satisfied by the testimony
OF the plaintiff offered for that purpose. that
he has Sustained actual pecunlary loss and
you lind II verdict for him, YOU may compeu-
safe hlm by such verdict for the amount he
has proved as such loss. A jury il not re-
stretcd however, to actual loss, if
there be express malice, but may punish
by their verdict fur the malice, and
compensate also for the loss. But u Jury
should have good proof (but this may be by
circumstances, such as conduct and the like)
Of actual malice, before they undertake to
give damages on account of it. And,
although common report or common rumur
does not Justify Il libel yet il 1t be proved to
have existed when the libeluIS words were
published and there be no evidence of express
nlallce and 10 actual loss or injury done the
plaintiff or suffered by him, the damage for
the implied malice merely, should be small
merely nominal Finally. no inference of the
truth OF the fact that the defendant wrote
these lIbels for publication. IL to be drawn
IRON the circumstance that he decliued to
answer the questions put to hlm to prove that
he did on tine ground that Ills answers might
eliminate him.
The charge occupied an hour and five
minutes ID delivery, aud tn" jury retired
Al III 80 to deliberate. AT 10 the Jurors
died uack into the court ruum, having
fouud vefdlct for the defendant. Fu n
ballots were taken in all during thel
delbeTatIop. Ga The first ballot he jury
,lVuu i0r ihs defendant to 4 for the
pssint.f The secotd baiiot resulted the
ALE. On the third ballot The jury stood
10 for tue d, feadent to 2 for the yilaintitf
II ppln3on of those who held out 20
long seems to have been that MIR Croasdale
mad used words that were entirely to harsh
aud ought in some WY to be rebGked
lac fourth aud final ballot resulted ia {.
verdict for the defendant
Ia the ctse Of Wilma ton Aid Assoois-
tion We Yields, George Gray, Esd, afth,
having fed the proper fiji iaviis lust May
term, ASKED the Court TO open the jUdg-
ment there given. confirming the SAvtf's
sale of Weds property, and 10 set aside
the sele. Tins Court reserved its iecimou.
III the lib-l case Of MARBLE IL rGnckery
vs.. ChalfanT, the bail was a ked for TO the
xtent Of the damages l4ld, viz: 81 CO..
The Court liked lie bail at s goo.
Ihr arguments in the Clemson will case,
which nad been postponed f:1m last We'd
ne4,iay were nov i.kcE up, George h
Rodn~y, E,q making tho chasing argn
u-It 10, die wjdowe.. Jotu Is. Cpuisun
TAa argument in this wiEicase occupied
the Go'!tt until . 80 o'clock when recess
OF about mihptus wa taken.
Upon The resssemAiirg. the case Of
Cazier VS.. Ium's administrator was brought +!
up by the counsel, W. U SDruance, ESQ,
for plaintiff George Gray, ED. for
defendant The fsces seem to no us I
follow
Isaac A. Lum and v ifa gave mortgage
Oh their properly. After hls death, his |
aon, tue defendant Charles a. Luw, gave |
a mortgage upon his interest He gnn the /
WIDOW we're appointed administrator aud
admiaistrauix. The first mortgage vas
pad. The creditor under the second |
mortgage comes and asks that the |
money now in court be paiti to him and !
not to tie administrator, Charles Lam. /
Ine court ordered the money pail to |
Mr. IAzier, which he asked for through |
his counsel, W, O. Spruarce ESD. I
Iao cgss of William T. 0roasdala "a
Dr. lantum, in which damages were !
recovered by plaintiff last term for
S726 10, was brought up by MIR. Lore and /
a motion made for new trial i5is priu
eipsl etonnd in support of this motion
wa4, the plan resort tn by III JUICY Ia |
ascrrtainIug the amount of damages
This was stated an follows; The jury
ARteed inst each should write the amount
OF piece of paper thst he Thought due,
put the II pieces III hat. and then when
AIKEN out all the sums should be ADDED
tlgether and divided by ~ aud the result!
should be tue amount of damages due 10
plaintiff.
The Court considered the question
involved, namely; allowing juror to
impeach his verdict-to be so important
that it concluded to reserve the question
to be heard before all the judges at the
ensuing term of the Court Of Errors and
Apptals which sits in Dover on the first
Tuesday in January.
j l. Vallsadghsm, E'q moved for a
rule TO show cause why new trial should