The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-18

-
--------------------
and such attempt to prove was also
made with like expectation, and in
good faith"
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
before the jury to warrant any finding
of bad faith. The occurrence had taken
place. The plaintiff had been arrested
The girl had made these charges; and
to submit TO the jury that there was no
evidence upon which they could find
that the defendant was acting in bad
faith, was permitting them to find
fact for which no evidence had been in-
troduced.
The court refused to charge, in the
| fourth request, that it was not neces-
sary to complete justification for the
| defendant to prove true the parts of the
libel not themselves llbelous. This
| charge was not given in substance.
What good reason can be given for its
refusal? In Its absence the jury might
infer that all the details of the arrest
and other immaterial facts must be
proven.
The court erred in not granting a
new trial. The plaintiff in his rebuff
| ting defense attempted to corroborate
this statement. by saying that once,
Price, was in the house at the time the
girl was there; and to sustain that
confederation, called as witness,
Hannah Bradshaw, who testified to
seeing him coming away from the
house. She did not testify that it was
Price, but she testified to man meet
| ing another witness, under circum-
stances which led the jury to infer that
it was Price. After the verdict was
rendered in this case, it was found
Hannah Bradshaw
HAD BEEN HIRED BY THE PLAINTIFF
to testify to that effect, and he expected
her to testify to it in stronger language.
She stated that her testimony in that
regard was false, and the affidavits
disclosed the manner and methods of
plaintiff, in procuring his testimony
Gould that evidence have been pro-
dueed upon the trial, it would have
been vital, and destroyed the alleged
rebuttal. For that reason q new trial
should have been granted.
JUDGE POWERS
followed in behalf of the plaintiff and
respondent. 1t seemed to him that his
brother, Brown, had drawn largely upon
his Imagination. He claimed that no
new evidence had been adduced that
would justify a jury in reversing the
verdict found heretofore. The damages
given were not excessive. There was
nothing of passion or prejudice visible
in the actions of the jury. He thought
the judgment should be affirmed, with
costs.
JUDGE SUTHERLAND
followed for The HERALD. The Court
erred in making the def endant prove
more than was charged in the article
alleged to be libelous. The charge that
the Court did give to the jury was mis-
leading. There was
THE REMARKABLE OMISSION
with all respect to the Third District
Court, to tell the jnry just what the Ii
belous part of the article was. 1t gave
the jury a general idea that they were
to consider that rape had been
charged. We insisted in the trial be-
low that it was only necessary to show
that so far as it stated facts they were
true. The charge was merely what the
facts would justify, and it would not be
any more serious, even though an erro-
neous name had been applied to it. The
outrage complained OF was analogous
to rape, and | think the jury would
have been justified in finding that rape
had been committed. The record shows
that the girl Grant made complaint,
even though she did omit the details.
The court below limited evidence as to
loves bad character, and allowed him
to put in evidence to prove it good.
The evidence as to loves good repu-
tation in Ogien should not have been
admitted
THE QUESTION AS TO GENERAL REPUTA-
TON
must be confined to the neighborhood
where he lives, there only is he gener-
ally known. If he goes to Ogden to
trade, he is simply known there as a
trader. The reputation of the man at
tackled by multitude of witnesses was
supported only by those who know him
casually. The court below enormously
warned the jury to receive the tes-
| timony of the girl Lizzie Grant with
caution; under our statute, the court
! is required to inform the jury that
| they are the sole judges of the credi-
bility of the witness; when the court
goes beyond this and singles out any
witness, he goes beyond his duty
beyond the purpose of the statute and
interferes with the functions of the jury.
The court erred in enhancing dam
ages. An attorney in court deals with
the reputation and character of wit
nesses, and he is not held for it, save
when the statement is actually malic
ious There is no reason why an attempt
at justification should enhance dam
ages. When put into the pleadings il
should not be taken as enhancing dam
ages. If there was proof sufficient to
entitle the judge to submit the case tt
the jury,
| IT WAS RIDICULOUS
in the next breath to talk about enhanc
ing damages because of plea of justi6-
cation. There was an attempt, and 6
bona fide attempt, to prove lusti6ca-
ton. If there were no other errors
and we say they were many, this error
alone necessitates areversal OF the judg
ment
The court erred in refusing q new
trial on the undiscovered evidence
1t was not. as has been claimed. i'm
peaching testimony it showed that thu
IL Loa,, III cd hu frorl o,,r