The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1891-02-17

Idhou away lTOm buo SOOOo, OHoo 10
for your consideration, whether it is
so proved; that the goods were on
the list and then distracted; that a
few days later Mr.. Crowley and his
partner had falling out, that l have
no doubt that has been proved, and
the partner gave information No
matter who gave information 10 this
case, the information Il nob before
you in this case. That ID c0ise
quence of the information MIR. Ather
ton made some search there with
some others and they were found
there; that Mr.. Crowley then admit
ted that it was firm property but
claimed that he had " forgotten all
about it." There is broad conflict,
and it is for you to be satisfied from
all the testimony and all the circuln-
stances that Mr.. Crowley did admit
having done it, having secreted the
goods. So that upon this first item
of the complaint you would find
verdict for damages for the plaintiff
if it is not proved satisfactorily to
your minds that it is true, and further
that if true the publication was
without malice, and in regard to
that a proof of want OF malice
would go in connection with the
truth of it to relieve the defendant
from damages altogether. 1t would
further go, if it didn't do that, to a
mitigation Of damages. OF course
publication would have different
application under one state OF CIR
cumstances as to malice and a differ
ent one under another. 1t says I'M
der our statute, and it is the statute
relating to criminal prosecutions for
libel. which this is not, that: " In
every prosecution for writing or pub
fishing libel, the defendant may
give in evidence in his defence upon
the trial the truth of the matter con-
tanned in the publication charged to
be libelous; provided, however, that
such evidence shall not be deemed a
justification, unless it shall be
further made to appear on the trial
that the matter was published with
good motives and for justitable
ends"
Coming to the second part of the
complaint, that, after this little
episode Mr.. Crowley took to stump
ing the country in the interest OF
temperance reform under the aus
pices of w. G. Z. U. This palled
upon his tastes after awhile and he
proceeded to organize troup of ma
tive hula girls at Kohala. He thought
that the show would take better
if the girls were dressed in silk tights
and opera boots. He accordingly
ordered them through Honolulu
merchant, but as his credit was not
sufficient to get them, he induced a
Kohala friend to guarantee payment.
Meanwhile Hawaiian Opera did not
pay the dividends expected of it. The
tights came, Mr. Crowley left his
friend in the lurch and the friend
had to pay for them. That friend
has very sober recollection of the
event"
As to the charge that the plaintiff
in this case proceeded to organize a
troupe of native hula girls and to get
tights for them and SO on, that is not
in itself libellous per Sc, there would
have to be a special allegation of
damages. L will illustrate: 1t might
not injure him in the upholstering
business, might not injure man to
have been engaged in the show busi5
ness, even in a low class show bust
ness. The point is that he does not
allege specially that it did injure him
in his business, and unless there is
an allegation of that kind he could
not recover. It would undoubtedly
injure very much the character we
will say of any minister of religion
and of many other persons in society
and in professions; think it would
injure a lawyer as well; it would in
jure judge to have it said that he
had been in some low show business,
or a show business we will say, but a
person in alleging such libel would
have to set forth his injury, and
allege, for instance, that it had pre-
vented him from getting employment
in his profession, or caused his dis
charge from his situation. But there
is no allegation in this complaint
that the plaintiff has been injured in
his business by it being published of
him that he had organized or at
tempted to organize hula troup.
The latter part of the charge, how
ever, is libellous per sc, because it
makes a charge against his credit,
and if it injured the credit of a
tradesman, l take it for granted that
it is not to be controverted that Mr..
Crowley is tradesman, man doing
business to some extent upon credit,
at all events that injury to his credit
would be an injury to him, so it is
not necessary to set that forth here.
And it is said, that Mr.. Crowley left
his friend in the lurch and that his
friend had to pay for him. 1t also
said, that his credit was not suffici-
ent and he induced the Kohala
friend to make the payment. That
part would be ibellous, the other
part is not; that is, there is no
special damage alleged for it.
Tho a&b;r1 ort;o1o rolof;ncr ~ -,