The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1889-03-14
WHAT coNeTITupEa LIBEL IN
~ u"U 'H"' ONO, llI'"'h '

The statutes of Ohio do not define
llbeR they only prescribe the penalty
top Publishing a. libel, leaving u 10 the
common law and tho courts 10 define
what constitutes the OfenBe, ly lr
I'm the celebrated. case OF Miles Green
wood against tile Cincinnati Enquirer,
Whi0h,Waa tried inlIblls, tho eminent
and able Judge Warren gave q dbcihion
which has been very generally no6g-
nlzed, by the bar of ONO, ~ good law,
This case was tried by very eminent
lawyers, tho late George ", Pugh, at
one time United States Senator, and
Hon. Thomas Powell being lD the case.
Ia tho present article we, propose 10
! present the points given by Judge
warren In the case above referred 10.
The 0iionse OF libel N a very ancient
ono, Among th6 UJews, ~ Sian
! der anyone WaR expressly forbidden
| by th0 law In Greece, SOOn
! Justly concluded that this liberty Of the
! citizen would be imperfect unless his
character was protected Az one
period IN the history Of Rome the au,
thor OF alibel was punished with death,
IN every succeeding Age IN every civil
Yea country up 70 The present time,
libel has always been clas8ed rs an OF
fens0 punishable by tho criminal law,
Chltty, IN his standard work on Grlml'
nal law, says there is no. branch Of the
law, which In no difficult to reduce 10
exact principles 40 the requisites Of
libel. Blackstone delnea a libel 10 be u
defamatory writing, Wharton, In his
criminal law, says II libel IL ~ malicious
defamation, made public, either by
printing or writing, ln order toprOVOke
him 10 wrath or To expose him 10 pub,
lie hatred, contempt or rldICule,
The Supreme Court OF Ohio have
passed upon this question 80 that no
Judge, no matter whether no halls from
carroll county or anywhere else, need |
lack for authority, III The case OF Tap
paws Wilson wi, OHIO 1927 The plain !
III brought action 10 recover damages |
Tor u libel The publication charged |
the plaintiff with 6eipg ~ purseproud !
money In ONO banks ahd With heilg l.
anxious 10 put down the Upilod STATES |
bank, so that his own stock might be-
come more valuable" Again, II was |
charged thRt the plainYh was |
IAN onlce holder, getting 0ne
thousand dollars q yelu for
about one months service, imd
YET having tho conscience 10 desire
10 make his ~, 900 worth 8 300 by ops
pressing the farmers and mechanics
aud lowering their priees,Hyf ~ 100 rM
IN delivering the opinion OF the court
N Tins case, e,Jndg0 Wood said a"Alibel
is u Censorious or ridlculing writing,
made with mNGhleYOus or malicious
Intent II does not necessarily charge
the plaintiff with q crime, for II its dc
Sign be wantOn and malicious ridlCule
and the hetendency of the pnlication be
to hold the person up TO the SGOM and
St,cCyS NJ SOeiQiBto degyddC dRd tsScR
his StaRdiHg an action for may be
sustained" '
First, let VA ask right here, and now, !
does II lessen q mans standing m sp'
Ciety to be called u bastard, Any per,
son can answer this 10 does not take
u learned Judge TO apply this law Of
the Supreme Court Every sane man
of the cOmmOnest common sense can
apply II. I'
Now, when Judge of the court Of
common pleas makes decision that IL
Is not libelous 10 call man bastard,
Is 10 surprising that an independent
newspaper should feel called upon 20
criticise said decision.
Those so called lawyers who are urg.
ing that the editor OF the News DEMO,
CRAT be arrested for contempt of court
because we haYe attacked said decision
had better read up not only on the law
of libel, but also ON the right OF the
press TO discuss and comment on tho
acts Of Government officials, including |
Judges .u ...
1t is'a mistake To suppose ghat a
Judge is above the law. II liz a worse
TO- suppose that . Judge eau
violate well known decisions Of The
Supreme Court and not be held to
account for his actions In the
public press II may bewthin the leglti
mate scope OF newspaper TO teach
even IA Judge good law aud good man.
1ers, and good behavior B."
On the question Of right Of thspress 10
discuss the 0llicial acts ofpubhc Officers
Judges, Judge Warren u
tho Greenwood vs. Enquirer case sald'
AN editor may continent freely on the
acts Of government officials and indulge
In occasional mirth orwit and IL rs ON.
y when the character Of the publca,
tiouis malicious and It's tendency is TO
lcgrndeand 10 excite TO revenge that IL
Is condemned by Tho law, ,,,. '.....
IN other words, by the laws Of ono, |
" Interpreted by our courts, u news
paper has tho same rightt0 Critlcise the
lCts OF our public officers, as IL hhs TO |
,fiticise private citizen.
A Judge, who makes decision that
IS contrary t0.lhw that IS N direct con
lict With the universal holdings of the
supreme court Of the state; That Is In
with the principles Of c0mmof |
sense, AZ universally understood and
,ppiiedeis liable TO the lust and severe
,ensure'of the press, and he Is certain TO
receive II, truthfully, firmly and Justly
II Is the duty of the press 10 aid IN
the maiesty Of the law,
md, IL the guardians Of the law are re.
miss OF duty, 10 is the duty of the press
10 defend the liberty, character and
.6putation Of the citizen against those
who would use a little brief authority
10 rob that citizen Of the protection |
which all the laws and traditions 81.
jredly guarantee, m ll
These observations are intended for