Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1892-12-22

the law OF criminal libel, the HERALD
publishes herewith in full the instructions
Of the judge to the jury in that Seiion:
THE JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS.
' . "'f PIsi"iia ,. se;.s
FRANCIS K. WALL, toJury
Defendant
The state in this action accuses the de-
;endant, Francis X. Wall, of the crime of
ibel, and alleges in the information that
he defendant on the End day OF June,
1892. was the owner. editor and publisher
4 certain newspaper, named the Aber-
leen HERALD, published and circulated
m the city OF Aberdeen, in this county
and state, and that on that day unlaw-
fully and maliciously intending and con-
irving to injury, scandalize, Willy, and
defame one Alanson d. Wood, published
and caused to be circulated in said news
PAPER a certain false and scandalous libel
and writing (which is set out in full in
the information which will be gwen you
to examinel. tending to provoke him, The
said Alanson d. Wood, TO wrath and a
breach Of peace, and to expose him to
public hatred, contempt and ridicule, and
10 deprive him of the benefits OF public
confidence and social intercourse.
To this charge the defendant pleads
not guilty, and this casts upon the state
the burden of proving beyond reason
able doubt all the material allegations in
the information.
The statute defining the offense charged
in this information is as follows, "a libel
is the defamation Of a person made pub
lie by any words, printing, writing, sign,
picture, representation or efigy, tending
TO provoke him to wrath, or expose him
to public hatred. contempt or ridirule, or
to deprive him OF public confidence and
social intercourse: Every per-
son who makes. composes or dictates y
libel, or procures the same TO be done, or
who publishes or wllfully circulates such
libel, or in any way knowingly and vii.
fully aids or assists in making, publishing
or circulating the same, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county Jail moi
more than one year or by fire not exceed
ing one thousand dollarz, or by both
such fine and imprisonment"
1t is incumbent upon the state to prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ar.
ticle complained of was published OF and
concerning the prosecuting witness
Alanson D. Wood. That it was publishe,
or circulated by the defendant; that
it was maliciously done, and that il
tended either to provoke the said WOOD
to wrath, or to expose him TO publ.
hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to de
priye him of the benefits OF public con
fidence and social intercourse.
You are the judges of whether or moi
The article complained OF is libelous. and
in determining this fact you must con
slider whether or no. it would tend te
provoke the said Wood to wrath land b.
provoking to wrath is not meant slight
provocafion, but whether it would pro
woke him to degree calculated to induc'
him TO create breach Of the peace), u
whether it tended to expose him to pub
lie hatred, contempt or ridicule, or de-
p,ive him Of the benefits of public con
fidence or social intercourse, and if yOr
| believe beyond reasonable doubt that il
would have either one Of those effects
upon the complainant Wood, then il
would be libelous.
II the publication complained of il
Iibelous in its natural effects, then the Law
presumes IT was published with malicious
intent, and it would not be necessary fol
the state to prove that malice actually ex
listed in the mind of the publisher at the
time the publication was made.
If you are not convinced beyond rea
sonable doubt, from the evidence pro
duced by the state, that the publication
complained Of il libelous as defined, ther
you should acquit the defendant.
If, however, you find the publication
would be libelous, if true, then you mus
consider Whether or not the defendant
has established any defense. He hal
offered evidence for the purpose Of prov
ing that the alleged publication is true
and you are instructed that il you believe
the publication is true, thai would be q
complete defense; and tits not necassar,
that every portion Of the published ar
ticle be true, but only that !. be substan
TALLY true in its general purport. Jour.
nalists have right, and it is their duty
to comment upon and criticise the acts Of
public officers II the acts OF such officers
have the appearance Of being dishonest
or corrupt, but their comments and crit.
icisms must be substantially true or the,
will be answerabIe for injuries caused b,
false statements.
1t is not necessary for the defendant to
prove The truth of any Of the alleged
ibelous matter. except such as would be
libelous If not true; and it IL not neces.
sary for him to prove or show the truth
Of the libelous portions Of the publication
by preponderance OF the evidence, bul
only by evidence sufficient TO create a
reasonable doubt in the minds of the