The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1885-12-30
PALATKA. FLA. DEC. 80. 1885.
TaELAW OF CRIMINAL LIBEL,

THE LAW OF CRIMINAL LIBEL.
Under the above heading the
Philadelphia Times says:
Although it is more than decade
since the adoption of the new con-
stitution that materially modified
the law of libel in criminal actions
against newspaper writers and pub
fishers, it is only lately that the
courts have reached practical unity
of Interpretation of the seventh sec
ton of the bill of rights. The part
of the section relating to criminal
actions for libel is new in its en-
tirety, and it was intended to pro-
tect the public press from the Vexa-
tions and costly prosecutions of
persons who had not been malicious
ly, negligently or falsely wronged
by the publication of matter proper
for public information. A very few
of the judges have been unable to
., .tr ci.,fe the drparf ure taken by
t..e new constitution III protecting
the public press against convection
when the truth is given substantial
ly in any matter proper for the pub
lie to know, CIR when the errors oc-
cur in the publication of such infor-
nation without malice or neglect.
The broadcast and clearest inter
probation of the new fundamental
law of libel in criminal cases was
given by Judge Thayer in a pre-
liminary decision in the Mckay
Mcclure cases, soon after the ad0p-
ton of the new constitution, IN
which he held that if the publica-
tions were made in good faith,
without malice or neglect, there
could be no conviction. AS the de-
Tense in those cases sought no such
protection, but stood boldly on the
substantial truth of the alleged Ii
bells, the decision interpreting the
new law of the seventh section OF
the bill of rights had bearing
upon the issue of the actions. The
defense was that the publications
were true, and the vCrdicts of ac
quittal were not obtained under The
shelter of the new constitution. The
careful and exhaustive charge o
Judge Biddle in the Biggs Garret
case, broadly affirmed the decision
of Judge Thayer, that in privileged
publications there can be no infer
ence of malice from the article itself
and that, in such cases, the onus o
proof of malice or neglect is upol
the prosecutor Judge WOODWARD
in the recent Coon Mcclure crimi
nal action for libel, accepted the lay
as declared by Judge Thayer te,
years ago and recently by Judg
Biddle; and, with the single excer
ton of the ambiguous ruling o
Judge Pierce in the late Stewart
Press suit, there has been no recen
judicial Interpretation of the sevent
article of the bill of rights that pei
mits the Inference of malice or cor
viction for accidental errors in priv
legged publications.
The recent Coon-McCIurc cas-
presented. the strongest reasons ia
the obviaus intention Of the Trainer
of the new constitution ia protectin
publications made in good faith an
proper for public information. |
Ia, cas-, ie ,,!itor who was calle
10 answer for criminal libel, had nc
seen, advised or suggested the pull
LEGATION of the alleged libel. II
had employed a reputable, exp'
rienced and generally discreet an
capable Washington correspondent
to transmit news from the nation;
capital, whose known ability an
care insured the publication of h
dispatch. He could not wait
verify the news he telegraphed b
sending for criminal records hu;
dreds of miles distant, aud he a
cepted the information from
source reasonably presumed to |
infinitely informed on the subiec
Such information coming into
newspaper office at midnight, wit