St. Paul daily globe., 1889-06-17

ing 1t credit. If the GLOBE. before the
publication, made such investigation
as would justify belief in the truth Of the
same then it acted in good fai tn, but of this
the jury must judge, But good faith is not
alone sufficient. The publication must be
with good intentions, and
FOR A JUsTTFIABLE END.
The law will not permit even the truth to
be published, If 1t be Of a character to cast
reproach upon others, unless to serve some
lie demands it, You will see from this that
when newspaper seeks to uncover some
thing that cOrrupts morals. it is laudable
object, but the statement must be accurate,
or substantially. There can be no question
but that the article published in
the GLOBE was on its face
libel, that it contained charge upon
charge Of immoral if not criminal conduct
on the part of the plaintiff, charges which, II
not true. should entitle her to damages and
heavy damages-not only actual damages as
for loss of business. if any, but damages by
reason Of attacks upon her character and the
bad reputation it is likely 10 give her. The
law imposes on the defendant the burden OF
proof-the presump ptioh IS that the charges
are untrue; that no woman could do as the
plaintiff is alleged to have done. But while
a false statement is libelous, the legislature
has seen lit to enact that after the publica.
ton of libel. and within three days OF
demand therefor the paper may publish
a retraction, and that if 1t does SO. and the
article is published in good faith, even
though false in fact, then. in the event OF
libel suit the plaintiff shall take only actual
damage. In this case a retraction was de-
manded, and the defense claims it to- have
been made. The retraction was complete In
itself i'll that each and every statement In
the article was withdrawn; but this is not
enough; it must have been published as
conspicuously. and Of this the jury must
judge. The court instructs you that the
plaintiff, not having proven any actual dam
ages by loss of business or otherwise, or at
tempted to do sO she cannot recover there
for; neither can She recover general damages
1fyou find the retraction to have been COM
plete i'll all respects, and this
WILL END THE CASE.
However. the defense do not rely upon
this only-they have two defenses, and they
are not conflicting. If the retraction is not
complete, you may still consider it in mitiga.
ton of damages, and Ill the matter OF good
faith, or the inquiry upon which 1t is
should have been made in what may be
termed, in this case at least, the better walks
of life: in the nature of things the inquiry
had to be made largely among dlsreputable
class, but they may have been truthful for
all that. You must determine whether or
not Information was sought and inquiry
made where it would be most likely to get
at the facts, whether a disreputable source
was not the best place; it could not
but necessarily must have been looked for in
the places and among the classes where the
alleged immoral practices were carried on.
Independent of the retraction, the law per-
mits what is called justification, that is, the
defendant may prove the truth OF its state
ment and if it does so that is complete de-
fense. III this case the main charge. the
gravamen of the article is that the defendant
was engaged in the business Of procuress-
houses and lead life of shame ana other
girls to change from house to house: If she
has done this then the defendant Is justified,
but Of this you are to Judge, because
it is not claimed by the defendant that
all Of its charges have been proven, l
do not recall any evidence to show that
plaintiff induced girls who were absolutely
innocent to enter such house. it would ap-
pear that while they may not have been pure,
while their previous conduct may not have
been without reproach, they had not en-
tered upon what we know as a life of shame
until induced so to do by the plaintiff, and
STANDS UNcONTRADICTED
that she has taken girls from one house to
another, or advised the same, and that she
was at least largely instrumental In sending
the girls you have heard mentioned to
house of ill-fame in Montana. You have
Il TO be e ue MANY ana Of the eSarges
must be considered as sustained, be-
cause the plaintiff. who has had an op-
portunity to do so, has not seen fit to con-
tradict them. The evidence shows very
BAD condition of things, low state of NOR
ais IN our midst but you are to determine
whether or not the publication is true. If
you find that some OF the charges are true
and that others are nOt-remembering that
all not proven are to be deemed untrue-then
you may consider the charges proven in miti
CATION Of damages. And, you will be justi-
fed. indeed it will be your duty. to determine
as to how the charges proven affect the char,
acter of the plaintiff; because II you find
f1,a in, tho baf hQ nj
if had little or no character to lose at the
time of the publication you must consider
this in determining what damages, if any,she
is entitled to-, for it will be evident to you
be tea' entitled I'll du'n to much a' smaller M "r dam
ages than if her character was good
and in like manner you may determine
whether or not her character was such as to
entitle her to any damages at all. You will
also bear in mind that it is her character, her
reputation that is to be considered; you are
not to award damages because of her hus-
band or children-they are not to be consid-
cred by you. Remember that she is not en-
tilted to actual damages from loss OF busi-
ness in any event if you find the article was
published in good faith and for good pur-
pose even though untrue, and that the re-
traction was such as the law contemplates,
you will find for the defendant: if you do
that the charges have been substantially
proven, then you will also find for the de-
fendant; if you find the charges not to have
been proven, then you will find for the
plaintiff, fixing the damages at such amount,
not exceeding the amount claimed by plain
tiff ($5O,OOO). as under the instructions OF
the court you may agree upon.
THE JURY RETIRES.
The delivery of the charge occupied
nearly one hour, the foregoing being a
mere synopsis and not the exact lam
guage of the judge, and at 10 o'clock
the jury retired, returning at about 5
o'clock with verdict for the defendant.
As on many other occasions, some of the
secrets of the jury room leaked out very
soon after the discharge of the ''twelve
men, good and true" and it seems that
while they were out about twelve hours.
but few ballots were taken. The first
ballot stood 9 to 8 in favor OF the GLOBE,
whereupon the minority explained that
they only wanted a verdict for costs for
Mrs. Hertogs, because the GLOBE
could stand it. The majority would not
have it, and after brief discussion
vote was taken as to what damages
should be awarded, if any, to Mrs.
Hertogs, the result being as follows:
Goose eggs, 6; a cent, L; cent, 2: 6
cents. 1; S25, 2. More discussion, and
at 5 O'clock 1T being evident that Mrs.
Hertogs could not get verdict, one
juryman having surrendered earlier,
the two in the minority yielded the
point as to costs. ito save the disgrace
of another trial." and the verdict was
agreed upon as stated above.