Morning journal and courier., 1882-12-22
SOurnaI sn0 Goutier.
Friday, Dec. 22, 1882.
The Libel Suit.

The Case of Alexander Troup vs, Regis
 ter Publishing Company-Verdiet for ; the Defendants.
 The Court of Common Pleas came in yes- 1 terday morning at 10 o'clock. The case of Alexander Troup vs. the Register Publishing company was concluded with verdict for the defendants. The rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence was closed in the forenoon and the arguments commenced. The closing argument for the plaintiff was made by Judge Lynde Harrison, he concluding at 2:30 o'clock.
 Judge Torrance at once commenced his charge to the jury He first read the con- pIaint of the plaintiff. Then he explained 1 what, in law, libel was. This article, he ! continued, is upon it's face ibelous, except it ! is true or the law in some way excuses it's publication. The plaintiff must show that ! the article was published with malice. The l character and reputation of the plaintiff have not been attacked and the law therefore pre- sumes that both are good. The defendant but sets up first the truth of the charge, second that the publication was privileged one. As to the truth of the facts charged, say that the truth is perfect and complete defense h this case if you find it to be as all legged in this answer. There must not only be malicious charge, but it must be false as ! well. This charge is that the plaintiff was ! guilty of indecent exposure of person. It is ! important that you consider this part of the I case carefully. The burden of proof here ! rests with the defendant and the defendant 1 must prove the very charge and nothing !! short of it. The specific charge of wanton and indecent exposure of person must be proved by the defendant it is not sufficient l to prove that a nuisance committed. The ! act and the intent must be considered as facts The act, take it, there is not much | dispute about The intent need not be proved as separate and distinct thing. Il l the act committed that you could in \ fer the intent, that is enough in this case. Il is for you to find under all the circumstance ! whether there was such wanton, indecen ! exposure as would justify the publication complained of. The law presumes that tn; ! plaintiff did not commit the crime alleged ] until the evidence proves to the contrary ! The presumption of innocence is in favor O ! the plaintiff. The defendants also claim, in l dependent of the truth of the article, tha l the plaintiff public man and that tn
 publication was believed to be true and ws published in good faith privileged one The publication of this article by news ! paper, unless 1t be true, is as much
 libel as if it were published by one of yo gentlemen; and it is no defense in - case like this. Nor does the fact that tn plaintiff was a candidate for public office o I November , justify the publication of Nc
 is not privileged publication not privilege
 in that sense that it is bar to recovery i
 this case. So that if you find that the publi
 cation be not true it will then be your dut
 to consider the question of damages. If yo
 find for the plaintiff you cannot find fo
 more than the $1,O0O claimed. But you cal
 give vindictive damages where malice
 clearly shown. In giving damages the plain tiff's position, the extent of publication, tn
 malice shown (not necessarily express malice
 the defendants wealth. the demand for re traction, and the fact that an effort wa ! oIa t< i,,S ic %rio fha of
 article which will show additional malice
 must all be considered. All the circumstan 1 ces in the case should be taken into conside, ation in estimating damages.
 At 3:2O the jury retired and at 4:3O the 1 came in and returned verdict for the de fendant. This throws the costs of the tris
 on the plaintiff, which with the expense of hi ! attorneys will make considerable sun
 Whether an appeal will be taken is not ye decided, and if so taken what the ground ! will be is as yet matter of doubt.
 On the rendering of the verdict court ae
 journed until this morning at 10 o'clock.