The times., 1893-12-08
Owens Libel Suit.
CONTINUED from page four.)


based on the alleged libel would entitle the
plaintiff TO some damages. 1t may be merely
nominal. for six cents, or more as the de-
cree OF malice or injury may appear to the
jury. And charge you that II you fno
that the language used In the alleged
libelious article was intended to convey and
naturally would convey to the reader the
understanding that tire crime of bribery had
been attempted to be committed, then per ~
Il would be actiOnable and the plaintiff
would he entitled to recover some damages
as already stated, unless the facts and cir
cumstances of the case existing at that time
shows and satisfies you that the defendants
publishing q newspaper did have facts and
circumstances before them from the declara-
ti0ns and conduct of the plaintiff himself
and Senator Wilcox regarding the very sub
ject of this libel from which the careful,
fair, prudent, cautious man would naturally
and necessarily he induced to believe that
bribery was intended or attempted, and that
the publishers published 1t believing 1t to be
true, without malice and from good and
justi6able motives and based upon facts
created by the plaintiff himself and the
party to whom ii Is said the corrupt PROPOSE
ton had been made, IL you find one was
made and submitted to him and pressed
upon him at different times. 1t was not the
legal duty of the newspaper to inform the
public of it, but It was duty OF imperfect
obligation growing out of society, its wants
and needs such as every good citizen has
imposed on him for the good OF society, to
give information and knowledge of crimes
committed OF attempted, and il without
malice such information or knowledge Is
given to the public, and IL the facts are real,
so real that they induce the mind to readily
believe them, the newspaper and private
citizen would be justified in publishing what
was known. 1t really Is justification of the
charge by proof of the facts and conduct of
the plaintiff and it is called privileged, but
it would perhaps be more correct to say that
is a defence that can be made under the
plea Of the general issue, in which the acts.
conduct and declarations of the plaintiff
may be shown concerning the subject matter
Of the libel, and If published in good faith
and without malice defendants would be en-
titled to your verdict. Ii 1t fails to eStab-
lish full justification IL may still he cOhsid-
ered as evidence in mitigation Of damages;
and the circumstances under which it was
published should be born in mind in de-
terming the extent of any liability. If the
plaintiffs own conduct and conversations in
duced the defendants to believe that he had
attempted the bribery OF Mr.. Wilcox the
plaintiff could not complain. The public
press of the country has the liberty of pub
fishing the truth as near as 1t can be as
certained but they are not Obliged by law to
do so, but free press under no censorship
possessing the liberty to publish the truth
are one of the safeguards of the liberty of
the people, 1t has become necessity In our
civilization, an educator of the people. a
guardian watchful of the dOings and con-
duct of public officers from the highest to
the lowest. They have the liberty to pub
lish the truth substantially of public officers
and of their conduct, and so long as they
act without malice and give the truth
founded on fact, not distorted, not cOlOred,
not extenuatng, not exaggerated, ita liberty
should not be restrained by any rules of law
that would make it effeminate and impOtent
for good.
If you find therefore that Mr. BrittenNapd
Mr.. Wilcox have told you the truth con-
cerning their interviews with the plaintiff,
you will consider whether the conduct of the
plaintiff himself was Of such a character as
to induce the defendants to believe that
bribery had been attempted of one of the
law makers of the people. Ii you are so
satisfied the plaintiff cannot recover.
The testimony of Mr.. Weiss is peculiar.
His testimony is that he did not request Mr..
Owen to say to Mr.. Wilcox that it was the
chance of his life. Mr.. Wilcox says that Mr..
Owen told him so and Mr.. Owen says he
did. Mr.. Weiss says Owen told him that
Wilcox was a rank free-trader and crank
on the subject of taxation: but he wanted
Owen to persuade him to act against the
parties that elected him and with the party
that had opposed his election. You have a
right to consider this testimony IN determ-
lining how this positive, rank free-trader and
crank on the subject of taxation, as stated by
Mr.. Weiss, was to make his political sOmer-
sault out OF the parties that elected him
and land himself in the fold of the party
that had voted against him.
charge you further that if you find that
what was published In this paper was sub
stantially true and was published with good
motives and believed to be true from infOr-
nation derived from Mr.. Owen, Mr.. Brit
ton ard Mr.. Wilcox, that would be suf
ficient answer to the case.
On the part of the plaintiff l give you
these requests:
PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS.
This is an action on the case for libel and
cause of action is made out il the plain tiff
has satisfied you by fair preponderance Of
evidence that the defendants have made
public through their newspaper any false
aud malicious defamation of George w.
Owen in order to provoke him to wrath, or
to expose him to public hatred, contempt or
rdicule.
AS a matter of law, every false and
malicious publication, either by writing,
printing or pictures, which falsely charges
upon, or imputes to, any person, that which
renders him liable to punishment, or which
is calculated to make him infamous, or
Odious or ridiculous, is libel upon such
person and he Is entitled to at least nominal
damages therefor.
Every one who publishes a false and
malicious article that Is intended and is
reasonably adapted to harm the person to
whom 1t refers, Is liable to such damages as
may be awarded by the jury for the injury
done by such false and malicious publica-
tion.
Nv.
Good faith In false and malicious publi-
cation may go to reduce damages and In
mitigation thereof, but can not defeat the
action, but good faith cannot protect one in
a false publication; and although the matter
be true, II there was no proper purpose in
bringing it before the public. good faith is
no excuse for making an assault upon
neighb0r's reputation.