The times., 1893-12-08


In order to justify the publication Of thu
alleged libel, the defendants must satisfy
the jury by fair preponderance Of evidencs
that every material part Of the publication
counted upon Is substantially true.
XI.
To charge one falsely with crime or ar
attempt to commit crime, Is libellous per &c
II untrue.
Publication of falsehoods Is never privil
eyed In a newspaper. No public Interest
can be subserved by their publication and
circulation.
| XIII.
A publication that Is libellous per Sc, thai
is, In and of itself. Is presumed to be v0lun.
tary and with malicious motive.
XIV.
The publication of the article In question
is not and was not privileged II false. The
defendants can only justify Its publication
by proving the truth of the fact charged,
that is the attempt to libel.
XIV.
| The publisher of a newspaper possesses
no immunity from liability In publishing a
libel, other or different than any other
person. The law makes no distinction be-
tween the newspaper publisher and any
private person who may publish an article
in a ue wspaper, or other printed form. The
public press occupies no better ground than
private persons publishing the Same libellous
matter. But they are privileged II true
and the truth Is found to be substantially
| established.
If the jury find from the evidence that
the article is untrue and malicious in fact,
| they may give the plaintiff exemplary dam
ages-but not IL the defendants acted in
good faith and without actual malice.
XVII.
Other similar publications are evidence
! tending to prove malice-but the circum-
stances of the publication are to be con-
sidered, and If the circumstances rebut
malice, that should be considered by the
jury.
Subsequent refusal to retract the libellous
charges is evidence tending to prove actual
malice. But not IL the truth of the original
| article is proved substantially.
DEFENDANTS REQUESTS.
| In this case, it is for the jury to determine,
| from all the evidence in the case, whether
the alleged lbellOus article does In fact
charge the plaintiff with any attempt to
purpose of corruptiy influencing his vote as
as such senator in the Michigan State
Senate.
In determining the meaning of the alleged
libellOus publication, it should be read in
the light of all the facts and circumstances
under which the article was written and
published, such as the political condition of
the Michigan State Senate; the matters of
probable legislation by that body; the
general comments of the state press as to
such senate, and its political complexion
and necessary or probable legislation; also
the previous statements of, both the plaintiff
i'm this case, and State Senator Wilcox,
relative to the matters referred to in the
said alleged libellOus publication, and also
all other matters and things, relative to the
matters referred to In such publication,
which had become publicly and generally
known, and as shown to you by the evi-
dence in this case.
Ill.
1t is for the jury in this case to determine
from all the evidence in the case, whether
the defendants were actuated by actual
malice In the publication of the article COM
planned of, or acted as prudent, careful
| men, believing the statements made by the
plaintiff and Mr.. Wilcox, and with and from
good motives, and for the purpose of inform
ing the people of the character, temptation
and standing of their representative in the
State Senate.
w.
The defendants, as editors and publishers
of public newspaper, had lawful right to
comment upon and criticise the action and
language of Senator Wilcox, relative to his
Office AS State Senator, and to publish the
same. provided such comments and criti-
cisms were truthful, and the publication
thereof was with good motives and for
justifiable ends
v.
If from all the evidence in this case the jury
believe that the alleged libellous publication
was no more than fair and just criticism
of the acts and statements of Senator
Wilcox, and the plaintiff in this suit, as to
what was and what was not the facts, and of
the probabilities in relation thereto, as to
what If anything was done or attempted by
the plaintiff, by way of corruptly infuenc-
ing the vote of Wilcox in the State Senate,
and only stated, charged or referred to
actual matters of fact las shown by the
evidence i'm this case) and which the jury
may believe to be the actual facts in the
matter, then and in such case, the publica-
ton complained of by plaintiff, would be
privileged, and the verdict of the jury
should be for the defendants.
vi.
Ii the jury 6nd from preponderance of
the evidence in this case, that the material
facts stated in the alleged libellous publica-
ton are substantially true, then their verdict
should be no cause of action.
VII.
If the facts stated in the article COM
planned of In this case have been estab-
lished by preponderance of evidence, then
the conduct and actions of the plaintiff
would justify the defendants in believing
and publishing the same with such com.
ments as the facts warrant, and with such
differences as would naturally follow from
the plaintiffs conduct in such case, your
verdict would be for the defendants.
VIII.
The fact that the truth may suggest un-
favorable and damaging influences, does
not render 1t libellOus to publish Ii.
TX
The official actions of State Senator are
of the highest public concern, and an
attempt by any person to influence him inn
properly, or by improper means in the dis
charge Of his public duties, would be of the
gravest public concern. And 1t was the right
Of THE TIMES to publish comment upon
tha ooto of tho y,loipfiH admitted hx,h hin,