The record-union., 1894-04-02
THE LAW OF LIBEL.
One of the Attorneys in the Late
Libel Case Speaks.
Distinction Between Justification and
Prlvilege-A Principle Involving
Sacred Human Rights.


man VS.. the Bee, sends to the RECORD
UNION the following communication,
presenting the history of the suit as he
views it and setting forth the law OF the
case. Judge Holl claims that as so much
bitter and hasty criticism has been IN
dulged in concerning Judge Catlln's de-
cision, it is simply just that the other
side be heard:
EDS. RECoRD-UNION: The LIBEL sult
brought by C. H. Gilman against Z. Il.
McClatchy and others, publishers OF the
Sacramento Bee and decided by Judge
Catlin few days ago IN faVor OF Inc
plaintiff. has received great deal more
attention by the newspapers OF L tnis state
than its importance justitles. The crlu-
cisms of the press have generally been
hostile to the decision, anu III many IN
stances the editors have attacked the
Judge who tried the case in language
grossly unjust, and in many instances
outrageous and indecent.
1t will no doubt surprise these critical
and learned editors very much when
they ascertain that there is nothing new
whatever in this case. The law as APP
piled to this matter by Judge CatlIn, has
been accepted and recognized by the
Judges and text writers in the United
States and England Tor at least fifty years
as the settled law Of libel; and, further
more, this decision is in strict accordance
with the law of libel as defined by the
Civil Code of this State.
The issues submitted to and tried by
this court in this case are evidently not
at all understood by the persons who
undertake TO arraign the Judge for his
decision. The court was engaged dur
ing twelve days in the trial OF this case;
four of these days were taken up by the
nd ON al of
this time the only question tried or
argued was the truth or talsity Of the
alleged libel. If the matter published
was true the judgment must go for the
defendants; il untrue, the judgment must
be for the plaintiff. Tue question as to
actual or implied malice was an lnciGen
merely to the main issue; II there was
actual malice, actual ill-will, the damage
would be punitive and heavy; IL there
was no actual ill-will, but only implied
malice. the damages would be measured
by the probable actual injury suffered by
the plaintiff.
The issues in this case are so simple,
and the law of libel to be applied SO
plain, that if the newspaper writers who
attack ed this decision had taken the least
pains TO inform themselves, they would
have found that there is no occasion for
the display of their ilI-timed valor III
favor OF the freedom Of the press.
1t may be OF some personal interest to
some OF these gentlemen to be enllght-
ened On the law of libel. 1t may teach
them Ia lesson some of them very much
need TO what eX tent and under what cir
cumstauces newspaper may assail pri-
vate character with lmpunlty, and in
what cases il will be held to an account
for libel.
BY the Civil Code of this State libel is
defined as follows, in Section 10:
Libel is Il false and unprivileged publication
By writing. printing, picture, eligy, or other
Ilxeoi re- ltscIlt;tiCn TO the eye, which exposes
any l,ersou to natreu. contempt, ridicue or
OGIUquy. or which causes him 10 be stunned
OF ttYUidod, or which has tendency to in jure
Inn III ..is occupation.
section II OF the same code defines what
privileged communication is:
\ privileged commun. cation is one made:
l. IL Tie proper discharge OF an ofhcial
Guyy
z. IN any legislative or judicial proceeding
c. Iii any otter proceeding authorized by
law.
g. III Il communication without notice, TO a
ler>on interested therein, by one who is also
ilteresteti or by one who stands III such re-
latlon 10 the lerSon interested as to afford
reasonable ground for Supposing the motive
for the communication innocent.
/. BY Il fair and true report, without malice,
oi a judicial, legislative other public Off
cial proceeding, or OF anything said in the
course Thereon.
Al common law the truth could not be
given in evidence in justification Of
libelous publication, but IN modern time
and in this country the rule has been
modified, aud now, no matter how scan
daious The publication, if published with
out malice, it may be justified by prov
ing the statement true.
OF this defense the proprietors of the
Bee attempted to avail themselves. They
alleged in their answer that the state
r. aounn hu NJ rS Irniff t1rr
Mr.. Gilman and published by them were
true.
1t may be we'll to look at their answer
for moment and see upon what ground
rests their defense. After admitting that
they published the ECeRiag Bee; that
they are co-partners,. and that they pub
lished the alleged libelous article in that
paper. and denying that the plaintiff was
damaged by means of such publication
they proceed as follows:
First That said publication was and is
true
Second-That the facts contained and re-
lated in the said publication are true.
Then in more formal manner in the
third" paragraph they allege that at the
time and place stated the plaintiff com-
mitted the crime imputed 10 him in the
article referred to.
Then, fourih-"In mitigation" OF the
publication of the article complained OF,
they state that Mrs. Truitt appeared be-
fore the Chief of Police and made the
statement in substance contained IN
said publication. That on the same day
she went before the Police Judge and
swore TO d complaint charging plaintiff
with the crime Imputed TO him in the
alleged libel. That warrant was issued,
the plaintiff arrested, and upon eXanina-
ton upon the complaint, held to answer
the charge made against him.
y u-il1 hn nhS0rUQH that If nj
claimed by the defendants that these
matters in The fourth paragraph consti-
tute q defense. Their attorneys are too
good lawyers TO make any such claims.
1hese matters were set forth as mere
matters OF a5itigati0B, which simply
means that it the court finds them guilty
OF libel, they offer these matters 10 dis
rrove actual malice, and reduce the
amount of damages.
AS q further answer, they proceed to
state that the article as published was III
all its substantial details correct anu
true,n That the materials for the article
were gathered, and the article written by
careful, competent ami trustworthy en-
ployes. That the same WAS published as
an item OF news. III good faith, without
malice or ill-will towards plaintiff, be-
lieving the same TO be true, ana without
desire 10 injure plaintiff. That they had
a legal right and privilege 10 publish 1t.
That as public journalists they consld-
cred it their duty TO publish the same;
and again deny that plaintiff suffered any
damage from any acts of thoirs. That, If
he suffered, any damage it was by reason
OF his own conduct
This is fair summary of the defend
ants answer. and it will be observed
that there Is not single claim or pre-
tense that the libelous article was such
privileged publication as is defined by
4 f,F tho Civil Coda lir U
quoted.
The statement made by Mrs. Truitt to
the ChieI OF Police and her swearing to
a complaint before the Police Judge. can