The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1890-07-16
THE LAW OF ISLANDER.
General Charge by Judge Norton


Gentlemen Of the Jury: You are specially
charged bv the constitution OF this ntate
with tho Judgment OF tho case, but it liz
my duty to declare the law tn you, just as in
other courts aud it is your duty to apply the
law to the facts aS in other cases.
Geo. W. Sibert the plaintiff, here sues the de
fendant John T. Widemau. alleging that in the
presence of John and J. W. Lyon the defeu-
daot DETAINED and slsndered the paintin by
falsely using the following words to wit
THAT he had stolen four hundred aud fifty
dollars from Wideman & PRESLEY, OH or about
the Goth Of D, cembcr 1889 [)f which firm tie
defendant was member] and that he had posi
tive proof that tine plaintiff did take the
money"
And alleges further that there ISLANDERS wer,
repealed in the preseuce OF others.
II the allegations OF the complaint are true
it il your duty 10 iud for the plaintiff. Words
must be substantially proved ID stated. Need
not prove the preci"e words
Defendant does not deny having uttered tho
words. but denies having done 80 maliciOusly.
IT as he says, he didnot utter the words maIic'
iOuSly YOU ought tu tind a verdict for tho de
fendant.
Malice is the gst OF sandor. a wrongful act
wIlfuly. recklessly or careessly, done Is said in
law to be malicious. d
You arc not allowed to say Of your nei4hbor
carelessly. We are made to think, and guard
our language and conduct al man Of ordinary
intelligence irving to obey the law.
The plaintiff then must make ont the Charge
of maIics. The plaintiff has made out the
Charge when the defendant admits that no ut
tered the wmd5 alleged. which in themselves
imply malice. the proof is sufficient un:l' the
defendant gives hiu reasons for tnese words.
The defendant claims that ie was justified
-. Ii
mary interest aud repeated them To no oue ax-
cept in trying to do 30. This is tue simple
question.
II the defendant made bis statement fer the
sole purpose Of trying TO recover the money
which he had lost, aud il he told it to no one
except those whom he thought really necessary
to aid him in its recovery, then the malice
would be disproved if man Of ordinary intel
ligence would have believed the sume thing
charge you that the defence il completely
made out if the defendant had no malice when
he had uttered these words.
don't know that l can help you any further
without trausgres>iug the law which prevents
me from c 'mruelItins on the facts.
You are also to take into consideration the
circumstances on each OCCASION under which
the charges wtre made.
After reviewing them you a:c to de'crmire
how mucu damapes you ought to hnd iuf the
plaintiff.
The fact that person had a good character
and that 1t was ruined by slander in any CIV
eli case would be good ground for very heavy
damages.
If q plaintiff in slander lad bad reputation
betoro tho false accusation was made, In sCcH q
case the camaSes would probably be less. For
instance, il notorious thief were falsely charS
ed with particular theft he Gould hardly be
said 10 have lost his character by reason Ol the
false accusation and no jury would hnd linn
heavy damages.
Again although the belief OF tho allegation
and the manner Of publication nlsy not re u
full rehuLlal uf the malice Implied from the
words u-sd vet il Lie defendant really believe d
the words 10 be true you are to take tha' INTO
cou+i1rrAlinn With the other circumstances o.
publication III e,timaiui: tue damages.
Onr OF the alleged pnbicalioIls was to he
Me,sr, Lvou. 1t is not . ju. u.tiicatinu 10 the
defendant That they had previously heard !Alo
report from the plaintiff himself.
Irthe plaintiff, in reply to au inquiry from
the AIrssrs Lyon had merely said thai he dld
utter the words which they lad repeated on
tue OCCASION referred 10 by them, 1t would not
have been publication Of the slalder {; bur II
the defendant then reiterated what no had be-
foro s..id with thn Intention Of making 1t his
statement aid not n.ero:y Ill acknowledgment
tuat H.. lad formerly made the sfatcm"nt II
would be a publication. and it would MT be Il
cu,l2ietc defence, much less would 1t Dea de-
fence if liz not only repcaic;llt. Dn1 added I'd
ditional word, u give it molc furce.
1t is fnr ynu 10 ray III there l. di'Ynia be
tween the parties Il" ~ what WAS really saul
In regard Ia the publication 10 Nir D'rid". J.
i, not eXcu>iLc because mr'ie cuii!irnli.t'!S :;
for one might liSr this ritrr 70 3n"crai him
self white he put ti,,. siandr i'll cIrcu."'n'n on
he might select one VINO nl.E. clrcu'A' Il con
ldcltiat communication trnm any otho"
Iii the defendant Went ~ i,r Dcidr ~ one
wi.nm be ;null.nt a1c aid prJ!'aniy wi'IimE 20
advise him hnw 20 recover hls money and with
no other purpose, this won'd rebut the pre-
SUMPTION Of malice but ii the conlEllcatlon was
not made for the sole purpose of lclplnS him
to recover his money which lie had lost it would
not rcbut this presumption.
And 80 in RESPONSE to the jury. You are TO
consider who WAS accused Of tho theft aud
whether the communication was made to linn
for the purpose Of helping defendant to rccoy
er his money. II it was it was q privileged
comnunicat on, but if not it was no jnstiiica-
ton. But the circumstances might be con-
siGercd i'll paliiation.
In all Of the other alleged publications the
testimony is conflicting.
Tn r.rar nd to the communication to Mr. Cook