Daily Republican., 1880-12-06
FOURTH EDITION.
THE LIBEL sUIr.
Ehe Charge Deliyered-A synopsis
0fthe Opinion Of the Chief Jas.
tiee-The Jury Retires at II 70.

OF the Superior Court this morning
Chief Justice Comegy delivered his
charge to the jury in the libel suit {
the Delaware State +. i IL. lns. Co. ' q
W. 7. CTossdRle.
The Chief Justice first stated thu, 20
sition OF the insurance company, tn
corporate as plaintiff and theIi reat
the libels claimed TO have been 'Sri.tel
by the defendant. These libefs by de
olaratiOn as we'll as innuen'.o, int
fraud. The defendant on the oihe
hand plssds--frst, that he is not gull
ty second, that he wrote the allsge,
libels and they are true Ul substance
third, that they were tru', fourth tha
it was proper that they Bhould be pub
lished, and that there v as no malice.
Although the defsy dent says they
we're published by him for the public
good, he still Pleads mot guilty." Snt
1t dsvolves upon the plaintiffs to show
that they were libslous, that they art
published by the defendant, that they
related to tho plaintiff and did damage
The Chief Justice then Instructed the
Jury to what constitutes libsl:--Any
thing written or printed against any
one inputing any thing tending to in,
jure in business, or loae- In society OF
TO hold up TO ridiculs. There is nc
reason to doubt but that all these ar.
ticles ara libels, II malice can be
proved and the defendant is libabls II
damage can be shown. II next de-
ponds upon the plaintiff to show that
the defendant is responsible for the
publication.
Any one who oirculates a libel after
it is published is slss liablc. 1t has
been shown that the defendant Is the
editor in chief Of the Every Evening,
and that these articles we're published
IN the editorial columns. On the other
hand 1t appears that the defendant
was not the only one who wrote editor
isl matter, but neither Of the others
knew who wrOts them. The publica-
tion has been proved AID also that tbs
libelous words rsfsr TO the plaintiff;
and only one thiog more Is necessary
10 be proved that the defendant wrots
the articles. 1.-THE plaintiff has not
proved this ii only remains for you TO
say that he Is ''nDt guilty" and that
ends the matter.
In civil action the jury must take
thsgrsater weight OF the evidence. The
counsel for the plaintiff has introduced
a copy of the Every Evening Of Dec. II,
1875, and in that there is copied from
an insursnos journal OF New York al
article referring to the defendant IN
this case as the author Of thee libels.
II this has been proved beyond doubt,
then in this case the defendant has ad-
mitted that he wrote the libels.
The Chief Justice then took up the
plea Of the defense, and said ifthese are
shown 10 be true, then the plaintiffs
cannot recover, but II malice is proved
then the verdict should be found for
the plaintiff.
Has the defendant made good his
plea in this Case, aud shown that they
we're free from luGlice! Malice In legal
contemplation means the doing Of q
wrongful act without just cause. To
prove this we must take tae surround
ing circumstances OF the publication.
OF course, If the defendant fails to
prove the truth Of the libels then the
plaintiff must recover. The defendants
proof by several OF the Officers OF the
company is that when 1t fnt com
menoed business 1t had no stock and
was doing a stock business. To be
able to pay its losses 1t must have
stock capital, and it is shown that
number OF mortgages were put in IS
assets, which If they were good
;or their full value would be good to
meet Losses. The defendant alleges
that the mortgages were OF very little
value, aud that the officers withdrs~
on this account. Now II these mort
cages were OF 10 value the company is
q fraud. The mortgages OF the company
were then taken up and tho Chief JUS
tice spoke first Of the Dauphin county
land, upon which there is immense dis
crepancy in evidence, but there has
been no attempt TO discredit any one.
If the evidence Of the wituesres tor the
defense is true, then the chief part Of
tue company's asssts is gone, but on the
other hand the plaintiffs have called
their witnesses who tell q desldedly
different story. These witnesses say
they reside near the property and are
acquainted with the land, and give in
detail the kind Of timber upon the
property. They state that q mortgage
lOr $4,000 wOsld bs safe upon tniS
land. In such different sttte OF
testimony you are to reconcile the
statement II you can and give
c;edsucs to the witnesses whom you
think most deserving Of it.
In the case OF the Gray farm, II the
plaintiffs witnesses are to bS believed
the mortgage ia amply safe, but it is
insecure, according to the defendants
Witnesses. On the Mckee aud Nichols
farm the mortgages are 81, 600 and S5,-
600 respectively. There is no differ.
ence in the proof OF the mortgages OIL
the Nichols farm, but there is upon the
Mckee farm and that you must recon-
cile. The mortgage en- the land in
North Murderkill Hd., 10 shown to have
been greatly in excess OF the value Of
the land, but Mr.. Bright tssti6sJ that
he never anew Of this land. The Du. I
Page county land must be considered OF
very little value indeed.
The report OF the insurance commit
tee of Wilmington of their examination