The record-union., 1894-04-02

lofs means the right to assail private
character and invade the family circles TO
gatner material for sensational articles.
Now, the law of libel is simply this,
publication imputing 10 person a crime.
or which exposes him To hatred, con-
tempt, ridicule or Obloquy, unless privl-
legged, Is presumed to De both false and
malicious.
1t must be evident to every thinking
man that this is a law in defense OF his
natural right to be free from unjust
assault; that in large sense 1t involves
the question of his right to liberty and
the pursuit of happiness
Judge Mckinstry, in the case of Dixon
VS.. Alien, 69 CAL, page 529, says: Nv hen
language is actionable aud il does not ap-
pear that it is privileged it is presumed
TO be both false and malicious, and no
other evidence of ialsehood or malice is
necessary than the publication itself
Aud the malice presumed in false pub
lication can be eyaded in but enc way,
and that is by showing legal excuse for
the act of publication; 4. e., by showing
that 1t was privileged"
Judge Crockett, in Lick VS.. Owen, AZ
Cal, page 258, says: IF publication be
Ilbelous and not privileged, the law i'm
piles that 1t was malicious. This is not
mere presumption, which may be wholly
overcome by proof, but it is d legal con-
cluSion, Which cannot be rebutted. But
whilst the absence of actual malice can
not be shown as bar to the action, the
defendant may plead and prove any nit
lgatlng circumstances to reduce the
amount of damages "
In Il recent case decided in the Supreme
Court OF Michigan in the case Of Meal
lister VS.. Detroit Free Press and re-
ported in Vol. 10, Am. State Rep, page
So, the court lays down the rule thus:
NO newspaper has the right to tritle
with the reputation of any citizen, or by
careleSsness or recklessuess TO injure his
good name and fame or business. And
The reporter OF Z newspaper has no more
right TO collect the stories on the street
or even to gather information from po-
lIcemen or magistrates out Of court about
citizen, and 10 his detriment, and pub
llSh such stories and Information as facts
i'll newspaper, than has person not
connected with newspaper 10 whisper
from ear TO ear the gossip and scandal of
the street. Ii true, such publication or
such speaking may be privileged, but if
false, the newspaper as well as the citizen
must be responsible to anyone who is
wronged and damaged thereby"
Again i'll Wilson VS.. Fitch, IL Cal.
page 31S, Judge Crockett says: 'In order
TO justify publication purporting to be
made on the belief Of the author that the
tact was true, the defendant must prove
he believed it to be true. Ii one publish
or another that he believes he was guilty
of murder or arson it is no Justification
10 prove that he did in good faith believe
it, but 20 make good the justification he
must prove that the plaintiff was, in fact,
guilty of murder or arson. This is con-
ceded on all sides to be the law, and it
results necessarily that if the publication
complained of here had asserted that the
author OF it believed The chief owners OF
the mine had been swindied, it would
not have been justification to prove
that he did SO believe. To justify the
publication he must have proved that
they had, in fact, been swindled."
hat the foregoing cases state the law
OF libel correctly no good lawyer will
deny.
The article in this case being actionable
and not privileged, the law presumed it
TO be both false and malicious. The sole
question, therefore, to be tried was
whether the article was true, and incl
dentaliy, as affecting damages, whether
there was actual malice. On the first
issue the court found against the defend
ants, and should have done so, in my
Judgment, on the second. The statement
of Mrs Truitt has now been twice exam
ined by Judges OF the Superior Court Of
this county. ana in each case held to be
untrue. The matter was examined on
habeas corpus by Judge Van Fleet before
he left the bench, The sole question be-
fore Van Fleet was whether there was
probable cause to believe this story, and
he promptly decided that there was not,
and discharged the defendant. In the
trial before Judge Catlin it was incum-
bent on the defendants to satisfy the
mind of the court beyond reasonable
doubt OF the truth OF the story, as held by
the Supreme Court of this State in Merk
al ol 49, 10 Id
says in his decision the truth is not
shown by even preponderance of evil
dence.
y large number of items published in
the Bee subsequent to the commence
ment of this action, reflecling upon the
plaintiff and intending to bring him into
ridicule, were introduced in evidence in
this case, which shows the ill-will and
aniInuS of these defendants.
If the court had found, as we think it
should have done, that there was actual
malice. and given plaintiff judgment
for $1,000, instead of 500, l am confident
the Supreme Court would not have dis
turbed such a Judgment.
The defendants, therefore. owe much
to the leniency of Judge Catlin in this
matter.
In conclusion will say, that it is evil
dent from the grossly indecent and ribald
language used toward the Judge who
tried this case by some of the writers who
criticised his opinion, that they do not
know the man whom they assail. Judge
Catlin has been q resident of this county
for forty years. engaged during the whole
of that time in the practice of his pro-
fession, until few years ago, when he
was elevated to the bench.
There is not all abler lawyer nor a
more fearless and upright Judge on the
bench in California to-day than A. p.
CatIin. He has the courage to do his
duty even if by so doing he incurs the
hostility of unscrupulous newspaper
scribblers.
This decision is based upon the law ap-
plicable to this case and will stand the
test of all appeal. though the entire press
OF the State should join in the cry against
it. In the end these doughty champions
OF the freedom of the press who publish
the Bee will come down with their 500
and pay this judgment.
Sacramento, April ,, 1894.
S. SoLoN HoLL,
One OF the Attorneys for Plaintiff.