The record-union., 1894-07-14
FEATURES OF LIBEL LAWS.
Curious TechnicaIities Which Are
Taken Advantage Of
Amusing Legal Distinctions Gases
THAT Reveal Humorous Though
Successful Defenses That Have Won
Damages-some Queer Conclusions.


Damaees-Some Queer Conclusions.
There are a great many curious features
in the laws relating to libel, as readers OF
the Herald who have noticed the discus
sions following its suggestions that The
laws upon the statutes of the State be
amended to comply with the enlightened
sense of the present time have discov-
cred. 4 good many odd instances have
been brought to light during the consid-
Grafton of the proposed changes that
is now under way all over the State.
Many queer cases have been given in the
Herald.
Altogether, aside from the serious as
pect of some of the ridiculous chapters
now upon the books, a multitude of cases
with which authorities on the subject are
filed, reveal such-to the laymen-ab-
surdities that it is wonder there has not
long before this been reform in the
methods of the procedure and recast OF
the penalties involved in the innocent
circulation of libelous matter.
To successfully defend suit under
present conditions the justification must
be as broad as the charge, and proof must
Justify the precise charge, else the defend
ant is bound to be adjudged guilty, tech
nically at any rate, and, as 1t generally
happens when newspaper is the un1or-
tunate defendant, damages in good round
sums are more often assessed than other
wise, however small the degree of techni-
cal guilt. But many incongruities are
the result.
NEWSPAPERS GREAT TARGETS.
The newspapers are looked upon as a
fair mark by large number of lawyers
aud their eager clients. Cases without
number might be cited to show the abso-
lutte lack of foundation for an enormous
number OF libel suits that have cumbered
the courts of every State.
One Pennsylvania paper has paid out
more than S20, 900 within the last fourteen
years to defend libel cases in which its
litigiouS readers had involved it, and a
Judgment of acqulttal has been rendered
IN each case.
Suits involving an aggregate of $500, 900
were brought against a Brooklyn daily
paper in one year by gentleman who
didn't feel happy apparently unless he
could find some alleged cause of action
daily The whole lot were compromised
for $50. This same paper had record of
but two successful suits against it in
thirty years, and in each OF these but six
cents were awarded the plaintiff. One of
these litigants paid $3.50 and the other
from $4,000 TO Sl5, 600 for the fun of suing.
1t is easy TO find vast amount of humor
IN the various cases that have gone
through the courts within few years,
and their ridiculous features are many.
Fine distinctions have been created by
Judges and odd bubbles over technicali-
ties have made libel suits to the untaught
reader seem as curiously constructed as
a patchwork quilt.
SOME ODD LIBEL CASES.
There are a great number of these hui
morously absurd cases, from which the
experts who make up the law books have
quoted copiously. They occur in this
country and in Europe. / have picked
out few of the more grotesque as they
have been reported.
Laymen viii enjoy a synopsis of them.
Some are positively funny TO verybody
except the mulcted defendant. One un-
fortunate newspaper referred to man as
q mere embezzler. Well, this man, it
happened, had really been convicted at
one time of arson, and he had served a
term of Imprisonment for forgery. Either
of these offenses was more serious than
The embeZzlement with which he was
charged, but, according to The curious
provisions of the law OF libel, the news
paper was not permitted to prove these
graver offenseS and the jury gave him
81, 200 damages as plaster for the ques-
Iionable wound inflicted upon him III the
charge that he was guilty OF compara-
lively mild felony of which he did not
happen to be technically guilty.
Here is another case of a Clergyman
who had been asked to resign his charge
oE account of certain grave charges laid
against him, and paper in this city pub
jiShed five-line item stating that he had
been accused OF kissing his Sunday
school teachers. He lived 400 miles from
New York. but he promptly sued the
paper for libel, and when IL came to a
trial of the case the newspaper was una
Dle TO prove that he had actually kissed
any of the school teachers or anybody
else. As a matter of fact the real offense
which had not been even limited at by the
defendant paper and 10 which this cler-
gyman afterward actually pleaded
guilty, was not of such a trivial nature
as kissing pretty school marms." but
the intelligent jury gave verdict against
the newspaper for 81, ,200-twice the
amount OF the preachers yearly salary.
How true it is that the innocent often
suffer while the guilty go SCOT free.
NAMED THE WRONG COUNTRY.
I have in mind another libel suit
against a newspaper brought by well
known local business man. It has not
yet, however, come to trial, though tech
nically, perhaps, the law is with the
plaintiff. The newspaper in question
charged him with being interested in
claims against a certain South American
State and with apparently using his in
1luence as public man to compel their
settlement. Well, it comes out that the
South American State named is the
wrong one-it is another republic to the
south of it, in whose claims he is inter
ested. If any guilt there be whatidiffer-
ence is it what particular Government is
interested? Yet suit has been brought
because the name OF the foreign power is
IN the first instance incorrectly given.
Under the present crude libel statute the
newspaper is technically guilty of libel
and will probably be so adjudged upon
the trial.
One curious libel case was tried not
very long ago in Louisville, KY. A man
had been in the habit of beating his wife
whenever under the influence of liquor,
and after one debauch he so ill-sreated her
that she left the house and disappeared.
There was hue and cry about this, and
when a searching party found in his yard
8 newly dug hole that had been freshly
nlled IN, excitement was at fever heat.
1t was opened and the carcass of dog
was found beneath the surface. One of
the local papers reported all these facts,
which carried their own insinuation. The
wife later reappeared, and the man sued
the paper. 1t seems peculiarly intelli-
gent-or was it otherwise-jury heard the
evidence and rendered verdict of TECH
nical guilt, with damages at only one
cent.
Another man sued a paper for mis-
rfa Hna n a iaalo in