The sun., 1890-05-18
THE Law or LIBEL IN MINNESOTA
The Newspapers Right 20 Print Proceed
tnga In Court
From the PioHter. fress.

From the Pionser. Pres
The case OF Albert Knittle We. the Pioneer
! Press ompany was for the second time hearI
at Minneapolis Yesterday and a motion 10 dis
that express malice had not been proven. wa.
granted by Judge Hicks after protracted arRu
Cutche6n Tor the defendant, and Nr. teItwici
7 for the plaintin The case is IA somewhat notet
ons 3wing TO- the OF ~ Fro SrEn arsb
Commissioners ot st Paul on charges OF i1sub
cution of those charges, the then City Attorney
/ Mr. Murray. introduced an ailldavlt signed by
Albert Rnlttie. a notary public in Minneapolis,
/ In the course OF his conduct OF the case In be-
half Of Kelliher, Attorney Dan W. LRwler,
testing this affidavit, and used some very Sc
yore language In reference to Albert hnittle
ITsss the following day-a fair and accurate
report OF the proceedinRs-and the language ot
MI LAWYER was given precisely as sIG2Een by
demanded on the part of Knittle and granted by
the Pioneer Press, only TO be followed by a suit
On the lrst hearing OF the case In the Hen
nepin county District Court the defence de-
INJURED 20 the complaint on the ground that
true report OF the proceedings OF Quasi-Judi-
clal body duly constituted and authorized by
Judge Hooker ruled that the publication was
conditionaly privileged, and that express NAL
Ice %Ss g e tho sbs tss
took an appeal to the supreme Court. which In
its turn remanded the case back to the Henne-
the merits OF the CASE but ruling that the plain
tin was not entitled to take an appeal from an
The case came up on Monday for the second
bearing, this time before Judge Hicks Al jury
having been impanelled. the plaintiff. Albert
knittle, took the stand. and testified to the
actual loss he had sustained in his practice as
an attorney In consequence Of this publicaS=
from he ffa
81 GOO the year following this publication. With
that the plaintiT rested;
MIR. Squires. for the defence. then moved for
previous ruling OF Judge Hooker, express NAL
oen tbs nudge rs
ance with the ruling Of his associate, conclud-
ed that be would life to hear the arguments
meaning OF the law.
acting in the interest Of his clients was prIvi-
legged to utter anything he chose. no matter
how slander9us or severe. that was calculated
New York Supreme Court were cited In sup
nort OF this view. 1t was further claimed by
e the was ss
so. and that In order to recover damages eX-
press malice on the part OF the defend.
plaintiffs attorney vigorously combated this
position, holding first OF all that the language
used by Attorney Iawler before the Board
of Fire Commissioners was irrelevant. imper-
tinent, and not germane to the matter at issue.
and hence was not privileged. From this 1t was
language was not privileged The counsel for
the plaintitf went 80 far Us TO maintain that
ihEG the Tternrss were
so privileged. as its effect was to circulate and
publish slanderous matter to the world which
walls Of the room IN which the language was
used. Finally 1t was contended by the plain
Ia S eon.aSl and strenu9usly 9sa argued that
and that express malice need not be proved
BY the plsintifr. All these points were ably
After u careful revieW Of the facts presented
Judge. Hicks decided. first. that the occasion
m which the ibel!ous words were spoken was
l1onef1'- Press was privileged. and, third that
he meaning OF the term express malice" as
shown by the plaintiff and could |
lot be inferred by the fact OF publication.
he case from trial.
AS shown In the arguments OF Mr.. Squires
eneray since it establishes % S the prnepe e t6at
my rewspaper publishing In good faith n fair
md accurate impartial report OF a privileged |
eareh Ior veriG Gcation Of t6e facts rH or aIesa a
ions, that may haye been contained in these
Feads sSa e 6y rTnE
md libel every newspaper containing the re-
'ort of a court trial or hearing. Legislative de-
ate. or the proceedings before any authorized |
ribnnal in the course OF which. language
uch ruling: il sustained would, in fact rem
er 1t impossible to present to the readers Of |
ewspapers facts and matters conceded to be
! general interest. and the publication OF
'hich Is by common consent allowed 10 be u
eCessity
Should this case. in which the liberal princi-
le laid down by judge Hicks will be welcomed
verywhere by the newspapers. be carried to
le supreme court OF Minnesota, the decision
that Court. as well on the subject OF privi-
'ge as on the question OF express malice"
Ill be awaited with general interest.