The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1891-02-17
JANUARY 80, 1891.
CHARGE OF THE COURT.


this description should be tried care
fully. conscientiously and iudici
ously; judiciously and strictly &C
cording to the facts Of the case here
and to the law relating to libel suits.
And it goes without saying to you
gentlemen of the jury, that no poll
tical prejudice or bias that you may
have towards the Reform Party or
other party which opposed the Re-
form Party, if those were the two
parties of the country, or towards
the Mechanics Union or the Hui Ia
laiaina, should in this action, the
controversy between individuals,
have any weight whatever.
There are two methods of redress
ing injuries which one is supposed
to receive by publications in news
paper which arouse angry feelings
and are supposed to inhict injury;
one by personal castigation, personal
assault sometimes proceeding to the
last degree of assassination; the
other, is by recourse to the courts OF
law, / need not say that the last is
the proper way, and that when suits
are brought, as | may say, sconsclen-
tiously into courts of law, they are
to be very carefully considered.
This complaint ruled in the be-
ginning of the case, or soon after the
beginning, at the close of the plain
tifss case, you will find to be of and
concerning this plaintiff, D. M.
Crowley. 1 think any other ruling
than that would be considered by
YOU to be extremely technical and
throwing him out of Court without
an opportunity to try his case. 1t is
in three branches, the first charging
that Mr.. Crowley who has been
shown to be D. NJ. Crowley, Z" was
engaged in the upholstering bust
ness in this city few years since in
partnership with Mr.. HASTE. The
firm became involved and made an
assignment for the benefit of its
creditors. A day or two before the
assignment Mr. Crowley and his
partner sewed up a lot of valuable
furniture covering, fringes, etc, IN
bagging and it was hidden IN an up
. stairs back room under Crowley's
bed. A list of the firms property
was then delivered to the assignee,
emitting the secreted goods. A few
days later Mr. Crowley and his part
ner had falling out and the part
ner gave information which led to
the discovery of the goods. Mr..
Crowley then admitted it was firm
properly, but claimed that he had
forgotten all about it,"
It is not contended by the defen-
dant that these words are not libel
lous per Sc; that is, in themselves,
and therefore it is not necessary to
claim special damage for having
published them. An injury is pre-
sumed without an allegation that the
plaintiff was injured in his credit,
his bus1ness, his character, his feel
ings or in any way that would do
him a money damage, or a damage
which should be compensated by
money. Then comes the question of
justification
If the statements here were true
and published not maliciously,I think
that it is understood here, what ma
iciously means, seeking out even
true incidents in the private lives of
private men might be maliciously
published. Bu5 it is claimed here
that it is not maliciously done, Mr..
Crowley being a man before the pub
lie and this occurring in political
campaign and this paper being the
organ of the party opposed to Mr..
Crowley. Is it true? 1t requires
proof, and 1 charge you that it re-
quires satisfactory proof that it was
true. 1 will not quite say that it re-
quires proof that would convict
Crowley of the crime of as / may say,
embezzling his own goods, embez-
zling goods that had been delivered
to the assignee in a way by that list,
for on a trial for the crime reasonable
doubt and many other things come
in to acquit person so charged, but
it must be satisfactory proof to you
that it was true. Then it being prov
ed to you to be true and published
without malice, no damages could be
given as to this statement. / will
merely call your attention to the diff
ferent parts of it again: "The firm
became involved and made an assign
ment for the benefit of its creditors
and that Mr.. Crowley and his
partner sewed up a lot of
valuable furniture covering, fringes,
etc., in bagging" Whether it
is proved that Mr.. Crowley did
that along with Hastie who is not on
trial here in any way makes no diff
ference. "That it was hidden in an
upstairs back room under Crowley's
bed" OF course the gist of the of
Tense is not that it was Crowley's
bed, but it would be a very strong
circumstance if it had been Crow
ley's bedroom and under his bed to
bring it home to him. There is evil
dence before you as to whether it was
Crowley's room at all. On the other
hand, there is testimony, and it is
testimony in defense by the plaintiff
in rebuttal of Mr.. Cavanaugh as to
the way it was deposited there by
the other partner. Then the next
49,, = 4bof n lief Of tho firms ,,yo,,