Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-11-14

former
district attorney was intended by the defend
ant TO convey tine idea To the public, in other
words, was intended to be charge of the fact
that this plaintih had attempted to make such
"A sale in violation of the trust In the cOnclud-
ing part OF the declaration, land that is the
Sist of the whole case), 1T Is averred as follows:
the plaintiff had tried sell the said or bones
OF the aforesaid Gueau for the sum OF 81 COO, for
hded to him by the said paper writing.
On this question, as have already stated
where the publication complained of is not ex-
picit IN It's Terms, Is not in form direct aSser-
tion OF the fact. then it is necessary for the
plaintiff to- add to his averments that it meant
| To charge something derOgatOry to his char;;c.
ter. On the question whether it meant to con-
vey that charge we have not received proof
either way. We received proofof all the outside
/ facts that could throw light upon this question
We received proof in this ease OF the facts Ia
| relation To Guiteaus supposed WILL and the
knowledge of that will; but il is lef. TO the iury
entirely 10 infer from all these facts whether
by this publication the defendant actually in
tended TO impute To the plaintiff an intent to
sell these bones for Inercenary purposes in vio-
lation OF the trust OF the will. That is probably
| the whole question i'll this case which you have
| Ii you find that that was the intention of the
article, then you find facts which in my iudo-
Tnent onstiiute libel and the plaintiff would
| be entitled TO some damages at your hands. In
the absence of any proof of express malice
against the plaintiff he would be entitled to
recover compensation for any actual damaoe
which he may have suffered, ii You are safisfied
| he did suffer any; and If he suffered no actual
Damage lie would De entitled to verdict at
| least something in the way of indicating his
| character from this aspersion.
some evidence has been offered tending to
| show that one of the reporters connected with
The STAR had unkindly feelings toward the
plaintiff. III those unkind feelings had any con-
nection with this article that would be a case of
| express malice; although the principal proprie.
/ tor OF THE STAR had no malice, PERHAPS even
had no knowledge of the publication If the
| article was inspired by or was published through
an enploye OF the office who had malicious feel
| ing, IL would be a case OF express malice in
which exemplary damages might be allowed
| But II you believe the evidence offered on the
| part OF the defense that Mr.. CroggOn had MOTH
| ing whatever to do with the publication the
| tact or his having any malice is totally imma-
teriai and is no proof OF malice on the part of
the author OF the publication.
| believe that Is substantially all IL Is neces-
sary Tor me To say, except one word about the
publication. II Is always necessary to prove the
publication OF a libel In the case of SANDER
In fact, in the case of q libel, tar as q civil
suit Is concerned, IL Is no publication to send 1t
or address IL 10 the party proposed To be libeled
| Ii write you letter abusing you, that would
not be a publication for the purposes OF civil
suit, although it might be for the purposes of {.
1 criminal prosecution. For the purposes OF a
| civil suit the thing complained OF must be made
public to at least one person other than the
party injured. Ii II is published TO one person
that is sufficient. Ii q newspaper containing
the iibel0as article Is calculated comes to the
| hands of any one man in the regular course OF
publication, and that Is proven, that, In my
Judgment, is legal publication. In this it
has been proved that DIR. Allen did get this pa