New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-03-27

reference to the srror IN The TRBUSE report Of tue IN
| tervew with DIR. Macdonald on winch inc hDoi W"
! based
| DR. Rufus l. Wilder who In 1882 Was reporter 70
The TRIBUNE, testified ~ 10 ths clrcnuls.1s =, h
which the interview obtained. The report OF ma
been written hastily and la one paragraph ne hsu lhu
vercnty used the name KeIting instead OF woodbury.
that the only error 10 thr article ,,.
DR.. Sanger Brown, Of bioOminRlae Asylum iotner!I
fled that he had made frequent examinations OF keatlng
the asylum, and had always Iouhe
The The witness witness believed bel hat Heating was sr Insane
Dr. William l.. Hardy, one OF the cOmths-lonerS OF
unacy testified that he had examined Keatlug at the
Tombs ON Decrmber ~, 1880. after he had been com
mlted ~ police magistrate. He found MN suffering
from nervous deusous among Others thai there was a
conspiracy by political parry 10 c0n-iEn MIN 70 an
insane asylum. The witness signed certucAte ATTEST
DR. Andrew l. gan medical superintendent OF Harris
Island Luuauo Asp lnm. who had been cOhbeoted WIN
the Wards Island Asylum while Heating was there said
that Heating had repeatedly betrayed his insanity there
He suffered from chronic mania Heating Always re-
murlercrs." He wanted XIII DE- Macdonald aud
threatened to =" hH the witness 4 DC WASH ie' Out
In rsbuttal Dr. James W. hauney, memDeF OF tne
commission which Time inquired re oto trstsi
regarded Heating then and now entirely sane
dangerous enough to need confinement I'm an asylum
III summing up VI. h"nAto sou ''s ,u o"s ~
man VINO nan hedrd the evidence coull escape ouo Wv
two conclusi0us-eher Keatlng WIS man OF nn'ound
mlnd, or he was very deprayed aud bad man. ana III
either event he had suffered no damage Dr. Macdonald
probably the best IN the country on the subject
had charge of MIN at the asylum and this was the
most cnarit"Ol way for the jury TO regard the
lunatc, then they must believe that a
man VINO had behind HIM the state Prison record OF
Keatnx who had to be sent to the Island by his family
for assaulng his aged mother aud who to-day declared
that no would have been justified In killing Dr. Macdon.
aid at the YUM, The audaclY or
such man coming INTO court and asking for damages
FOR the publication complained OF was astounding:
The burden OF the argument OF the paintlns lawyer
in summing up that Kratlng had reformed since hs
stat Prison day'. and tnAt hls rep1taton tnat mao
ha.u pna he
did not Of his past n9dscds; and he thought IL
repreheusbe for the Defendants counsel to nave
brought those matters out on cro-s-eXanlnatloh
JUSTICE BARRErI's CHARGE.
Justice Barrett then charged the Jury. giving an ex
ceedingy clear statement the law upon the subject
A complete summary of the charge is as follows;
It's important approach the consideration OF
this from any preludice when may DC pro
duced By the remarks counsel side or the other
should also free ourselves from any prejudice con
the case simply Its The press should be sus
tanned by all goo! citizens In every laudaDle euot 10 90
gOOl. On the "ther mana, "ueh huu-e5 III IeoA'sS
malice and seusat Ouaiism II should he condemned Oi
this paper IS not responsible TINS man was per
fecty sane and doctors reckessS or etrOu5u9y Ger
TO his insanity and kept MA 10 an insane s1yu r IUr
TRIBUNE with libel Tor calling him an insane man. They
charge the defendant with beng hlD by SAYING
charge he paper with hbellng MIN by charging
him with special form OF mental deusion. aud the iorg
a misfortune. The whole article which rotors to MIN
is lett out Of the charge OF Libel. There was long
charged Il libel. The question as to VIII ther he vas
sane question merely with reference TO the
,ir - 80 I,Itie iigr,nce So n he was in
particular charge would be or very little cOu-
sequence. But 1t may he that he was sane.
am has nroyei here thar lust b-for thus article was
published, "a Frenchman committed violence In Four
t-entI-sL in such twakcn public interest
that a wise editor, who desires both TO increase
the circulation PAPER and to the public, was
/
have heard evidence mere Of e person sent 10 -et
the interview. At that time 1t appears by nncontra
inc about Heating IL wOuId seem that there was no
great violence to ruth anywhere in the srtc" 1t VII
be you decide whether It not st least fair
statement OF what DR.. Mac onad sad 10 the reporter.
of Keatug then the ot Woodbury. the reporter
inserted keatlng's name where Woo iDurys should
have appeared ana thns attr hteA an lu'0h 10 Neat
ing which should have been ascrlbed to Woodbury..
1 snail have to charge you that the occasion
for the publication Of this article was such as TO gIXo
what is called III law conditional privilege Thus.
IN addition TO the alschood Of this article must DO
established tuaJ actuu nance was eAuioi'et HgdIusI
this man. charge you tnat although a mistake was
10 ESTABLISH mat mere was AN INTENTION 10 Yue thiS
plantn, proof outside oi the article must be pFOduc
NOu heard say stage or he Sc that had 10
not been for the evidence OF Mr.: wilder should
have dismissed It. Will explain that You may md
an intent to inIure ms pIAhth from refusal 70 haAe
may see no evidence OF malice. 1 leave 1t
time that Mr. Widor appeared upon scene there
any distinct attcmptto oh ain correction Of the par
tlcuar referred to in the complaint II up to
that time the editor had never received demand Tor
retrsctlon except when coupled attack upon
Institution ami gentleman which wOui be IN both in
stances beOus, leave It to you 10 whether he can
be regarded guilty Of malice for not making cOrrec
ton. 49,,
II you the conclusion th"t there
evidence Of malice then the question
for you to decide whether you believe the
testimony OF Mr. william wilder special
sd -neciac demand FOR retraction or Mr. Bowprss de-
Dal that there such interview. Mr. Wilder said
TINS request was refused Peremptory. In deciding
this point you must take al the questions into consd-
After this alleged interview letter was writ
to the newspaper by the plaintiffs attorney asking
for Tetrac lou, combined with the suggestion that re-
MADE to the fact that keng had asked for redress
on previous occasions and been refused but moth
der had asked for it and been refused. II
Is for you decide whether Urdcr the circumstances
demand made b. his brother which had been refused 10y
the defendant IT, the whole. you conclude that there
be for the defendant, for the plaintiff for nOmi al
damages II you believe that the article acknowledges
ciousy with intent to iuiure this plaintiff then 1t Is
quite claimed by his counsel that yon have 1t III
In particular phase of Del the question OF
character in or course the damage which man
which a good man suNtains. man that has had the
misfortune even wlckedness to be criminal at one
have good character at later
stage OF his life. Reputation Is largely question or
character. People who te-uhed a. TO atings char1
without knowing the real facts OF his lie could
only peak ~ nn fb .mrf,co who does not
deserve f., whose character essentially bad.
good reputation and indeed may not nave good char
acter. II IS for you to determine You may DrIrVe
TO NV nstrnctonS viii either hr for he defendant or
the plaintiff for six cents or for the paintn Tor uch
under fair view Of the case you think he Is ell
titled to.
The jury then retired after brief absence returned
with verdict for the plaintiff for six cents damages.
--------~-