Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1888-02-12
FRIVOLOUS LIBEL SUITS.

FRlN OLOlS LIBEL SO1AS'
A fair instance of the annOyanees that
reputable newspapers are constantly sub
iected to in the publication Of the simple
news of the day is given in the case OF
DR. J. f. HAYES Is. the Philadelphia
Press, which was decided the other day in
favor of the defendant. DR.. j. +. HAYES
was reported some time ago in the regular
legal reports of the leading Philadelphia
papers as having had Judgment entered
against him, but the Press in the heading
of the article, used the word "embar-
rassed." aud on that frivolous pretext a
libel suit for damages was instituted
against that journal After occupying the
Court for several days the case was sub
mitted to the jury without evidence on
the part OF the defense, and the jury yes
terday morning rendered a verdict tor the
defendant.
In commenting upon the case the Phila-
delphia Times says:
1t was not pretended that the Press had
either negligently OF maliCiousiy wronged
the plaintiff, except 10 the use OF the word
embarrassed" in the caption OF the regu-
lar legal report, aud the facts OF the case,
as presented briefly in all the daily news
papers. much more strongly indicated the
business embarrassment of the plaintiff
than did the heading; but the facts were
not disputed; they could not be disputed
thew were not complained of, for they ad-
mittedly came under the highest privilege
in a newspaper publication; bat a word IN
q headline that fairly expressed the sense
of the information contained IN the publ
cation, was seized upon to harrass a pub
Usher; to occupy the valuable time OF the
Court for halt a week, aud to take thr IT
mote chance OF striking a jury that would
resolve doubts against newspapers. The
case was so frivolous that Judge REED, IN
refusing the motion Of the defense for q
non-suit, plainly decided to resolve Judicial
doubts literally in favor OF the fullest cor
sideration of the case by the jury, as in his
charge he expressed a doubt whether there
was sufficient evidence to warrant submis-
sion to a jury.
The Times, which has probably had
more experience of libel suits than any
other p of its age in the country, thus
remarks: The newspaper that is thus
the victim of the frivolous libel prosecutor,
is entirely indicated and the costs tall
upon the plaintiff, who toolishly or i'll
adyisedly instituted the suit; but where
does Justice to journalism come in? The
average cost OF defending Il libel suit, iu-
Guiding the necessary time, preparation,
employment of counsel, etc, is about $500,
all Of which the defendant must pay for
the luxury OF being butfeted in the courts
on complaints which are wholly the inven-
tions of suitors or lawyers. The Times has
paid over $50, 900 for the dsEeu7e OF libel
suits since it WAS founded thirteen years
ago, and there Wa a judgement OF acquittal
or for the defense in every case. In other
words, this journal has paid OyeC $50 600
as the price Of exposing wrong.doerS
and battling with foolish suitoTs or worse
than foolish llwyerS, Ia maintain the free
dom of the press in the most liberal evil
cation of the world. There is no redress
for this wrong against journalism, and
there can be none until defeated libel
suitors are made liable for all actual COTS
and expenses of the defendant when in the
Judgment of a jury the action ia unwaT-
ranted.
when the Times was started, yexa-
tious and costly libel suits were the COM
mon and generally the successful weapon
of public wrong-dOers when criticised by
the pap Nearly every public
Journal in this city had been harrassed by
libel suits, aud it was not until this jour
nal was assailed in the same way that the
dignity and power Of legitimate Journalism
was boldly asserted aud maintained. H.
stead of shrinking from the heavy costs
and serious yexatiOns of libel suits by al
lowing them to stand on the Court records
as a menace to honest criticism, the
Times adopted the policy of fore
ing every libel suit to trial, and
allowed them to end only By the verdict
of a Jury. 1t always refused to allow a
mol pros. to be entered in u criminal suit
because it might imply a compromise, and
il was not until it had thus bsttled through
nearly a dozen years and through over two
dozen libel actions, that public ~plunderers
and wrUng.doers generally learned that
frivolous or malicious libel suits against it
were improbable. But while adventures
are ready to tempt chance, or lawyers seek
bad cases for want of good ones, costly and
harrassing libel suits will be one Of the in
fictious that honest and fearless journal
ism must suffer in patience, until the law
accords with Justice in requiring plaintiffs
in civil suits to be liable for costs, when
the jury shall deem it Just as 9th prose-
cutOrs and defendants are now lisble for
costs in criminal cases"