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

plant had been made on the subject of
rape, or injury of that character. The
only logical or sensible rule to set up
| that a complaint on that subject was
| made, is to call for what the injured
party actually did say, and let the jury
determine whether it was complaint
or not There is some conflict in the
law on this subject; but we think this
rule is established by the weight Of
authority.
The evidence of
THE CHARACTER OF LOWE
was. by the court. limited to chastity.
His general reputation, the defendant
was not permitted to attack.%SThe repu.
tation of man in case of this kind is
important. 1t is the very gist of such
actions, and we claim that we have a
right to attack it not only as to the
chastity, but in all other ways. It was
proper to inquire: who are your
"What are yo1?" "What standing have
you in the community" a man might
be q poor, worthless wretch, without
character. without reputation, and yet
have a reputation for chastity. Does
the court mean to say that such man
|
the same as man of the very highest
character7 We think not. We have a
rightto say that
We COULD NOT INJURE HIM;
that he had no character. Lowe al
legged that his reputation had been
damaged to the extent of $25, 900, and
the defendant had right to show what
his general reputation was. They have
right to show that his reputation had
not been damaged because of the simple
fact that he had no reputation that
could be damaged. The defendant of
fered evidence to show that the charac-
ter of plaintiff for chastity and morals
| in WeIlsville was bad The plaintiff
resided in Wellsville, and had resided
there for @ number of years. To
meet this evidence of bad character
at home, plaintiff called witnesses
who had casual acquaintance with
| him on business matters in far Off towns
Steele knew him as business man in
| Ogden. Lowe had never lived in
| Ogden; he had no chain of acquaint-
ance there, and had never established q
character in that town either for
chastity or against it. He had no OPP
portunity to do so; but he is permitted
now to answer the question as to his
general character in Ogden. Toponce
knew him in Corinne, where Lowe
never resided, and he is permitted to
testify of the general reputation of
Lowe in Ogden, where neither lived.
| Bunce had done business with him
in Logan, and he is permitted
to state what his character then was
as q business man for honesty. James
Glendinning knew him years ago at
Leesburgh, Idaho, and he was per-
mitted to testify as to his chastity at
that point. George A. Lowe had done
business with him in Salt Lake City,
also witnesses Hogle and Ruth; and
they w3re permitted to swear that his
general character was good. though
plaintiff had never lived in Salt Lake
City-had never been there long
enough to establish his character on
this subject, and they never had any
oppor unity to observe his character in
that Pc ':?uler The evidence of
Hogle - chastity, coming as it
did from a man of such well known
virtue as Rogle, doubtless had its
effect to -..4 5J.Ls
PREJUDICE THE JURY 2a4
The admission of this evidence was
error. The court in admitting it, seems
to think that the plaintiff had the right
to defend his character to the extent
that it was attacked by the article
claimed to be libelous: but the rule is
well established that the plaintiff is not
authorized, in the first instance, to es-
| tablish q good character, or as indie
pendent fact. 1t was only to rebuff evil
dence produced by the defendant that
he could go into the subject. Hence
the evidence of good character must be,
in its nature, rebutting, that is, it must
answer the evidence of defendant. This
evidence so introduced did not tend to
answer the evidence of the defendant.
In this case this evidence was highly
preludicial. The parties thus called to
speak of the character of plaintiff in bis
behalf were men well and widely known
men of high standing and known
chastity in Ogden and in Salt
Lake. The reputation and character
of plaintiff was the very gist of this
action. 1t had been put in issue by the
plaintiff in bringing the action. Thus
permitting it to be sustained by i'm.
proper evidence not only decided the
main issue in favor of plaintiff, but,
evidently. was the cause of the
extravagant and excessive damages
which were found in this case.s
THE DAMAGES IN THIS CASE WERE FX-
| CEsSIvE.
Here was a man suing for libel, whose
character for truth and veraoity, anC
whose character for chastity, were
shown to be worthless in the whole
community and vicinity where he lived
Himself putting it at issue. knowing
that the question would be raised,
coming prepared as far as he could tt
meet it-could find hardly man in the
whole community to sustain him. The
defendant showed that it had ample
justification for believing true the state
ment published in The paper, that the
statema nt had been made by the CIR
herself under circumstances which woulC
lead every honest minded ssman to BIZ
lieve that it was true. And yet, witt
all these facts, the jury go out, ant
re 1der this exorbitant and outrageou'
verdict; which shows that the Jury
were biased by something-either BY
some improper influence out of conrt
or by improper testimony in court. Ii
is disgrace to justice to allow such {
verdict to stand.
The court erred in charging the jur.
that "they should receive the testl