The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-07-23

ae. -, ~ tScm could not be printed. that
!, afoa short Of printing the whole Wouiu
ha likely 10 mlsle@u. It, q. .ho fr,,,
600 delivered this afternoon IN the pres
,,'a of "a great crowd, in,lldlng uealy
.,e,v member OF the bars or NOilOlH anu
the surrounding towns, .-...,..s ,.,,on
Tnrre are eighteen instru;uons, Wiich
,clite fhe paragraphs from the fhO,
-4liieatiou II December y, 1871, upon
tchirh plaintiff based his ult Tor lahh-
ACES afd are Regarded ny -hosc ,t'sr ~,
'',,ratart 70 aualyze them as dccipelly
f,t.nrafle TO the plaintiff The court IN
efricfs the jury that If they beneNe ine
frferdauts meant TO charge pitintll Ni1h
having accepted a Drlne from the Ailtli-
.u p01k Company through its ae iht'
~ W0macs. IS the price OF his IN
G.cnre and official action I'm the matter
IN awarding contracts TOT ltiiia''lle
gfhC ol-ho0ks; that w omack palu ne ~.
,ateoe Of tie trip TO tanddd, ana INC
s.rao was accepted for the same pur-
use and that other charges unade
bart of the Instructions are also uIllIue
ana lihollous 10 is not necessary 20 max
. urff.rr Nhcllous that the linpni'uoii
ehruid he made IN the form OF positive
assertion but that 10 may be equaily 50
if fhav are expressed IN the form oi III
ainuafiou or iutcrroEdtioh' piyFiutu ~.
,nrnuinp is plain. and II was the uuly on
~. fuf.v 10 consider what IL the ieal
moaning of the said items from their con-
frvf and connection IN the article I'D ques-
they WNNiA nc E't'tt+i4f
stood bv readers Of ordinary and reason
ii. understanding. and If the Jury believe
from The evidence that the sald llcins, M -.
any one OF them, convey the iiltai'n,r ,,,r
That plaintiff accepted bribe. the pupn
retion IS Hbcnous one. and not "a prNl-
legged communication
WHO Is BtsPoNs1BLr?
In considering whether the charges
,cere untrue or true the burden OF proof
ie ON the defendants the planul ls
rutfflcl 90 secure damages against lht
attendants. or such Of them as tnt JuiZ
ebau ind 8id compose and publish. or
rquea fo be published, said items. ihe
fnrv we're instructed 10 ascer' am Whelhei
There was reckless indifference or Wahlon
Iieres,9rd of the rights OF the plalnun
.r5 N There was such disregard as
amounts 10 am intentional violation OF
lis rights. be may recover punitive or
trn1ictive damages. The defence OBJECT
cd and noted exceptions; -. 49,. or,,,
~bn court further held that not only
iu the rersOn who cOmposeS a lhehous
article for publication responslblti put
aiso the owner of the paper IN whlci II
is rfihHehed the editor. y ne 'dustu ~ ~
allowed same 10 be- published. ana WINE
the directors of the corporation WIlcu
owns the paper are not hanle 40 IE
because they are directors, YET II ' Wy
urosident or directors OF such company
oeeief and concur I'm any libellOus pun
lcaffOn knowing or having reason 20
know. II may be lihelous, they are sullty
and liable and plaintu may SUI % %9he
and an rhe law makes no dlsuhcuon
between vrong-dOcrs but holds that each
ana all Of them are liable for the WrOhs
DONE Counsel for defendants again eA-
me Court said that whether or not
plaintiff offered a hribe 90 Witness James
was not one Of the issues which the
jury was sworn 10 try IN TINS casc' anu
that the evidence Of James could onlN
be considered as affecting the character
Of nftfnfin The II1TN WAS fEfNlIQtU ii4dA
the alleged evidence of iarr and l)icfNn-
son was not admitted, and must not pc
considered by the jury, nor had the jury
the right 10 consider the quesuohS aSh-
cd by Counsel for defendants or 9ne
plaintiff. ON cross examination or tns
extracts from writings read by salu
counsel as a basis for questions, as as IL III
PRODUCING proof on the subject OF snch a.
legged hribe. but can only Conslder thS
answers Of plaintiff 20 such questions ana
defendants were bound by plaintiii
answers and could not contradict them
Counsel for defence eXceutcd Iht Jury
was instructed not &C regard any anes'u
evidence which had been ruled out even
though they may have read II IN ihe
newspapers OF beard Il otherWise' Nap-
tain Wise again excepted.
BURDEN of pno1F OF TIE DrFESsr.&
The defendants mast prove the truth
of their charges to the satisfaction OF
the jury by q prepOnderance OF tcsu-
m0uy. TO This instruction an ,AcepuDH
was noted. The law assumes that lle
general reputation of witness LOT uulu
and Veracity is good, and when a1tdchv"
f must be hy rrcpOndcrance OF tNl-
dcnce. Just as any other TACT IN the cdSt.
Exception noted. The simple TACT lha0
". ~. Gibbs and other persons were
stockholders. or directors, or oiicers oi
the Pilot Publishing Company does not
make them as defendants liable 10 thc
nlaintu. The burden Is on nm 10 snow
that they actually participated IN con-
posing, uuering, or publishing lle ilo,', ~,
unless some act OF declaration, or cor
duct shows a personal pafuclpauuh ~
them in said libel
The material element OF damage in
this case. said the Court, is injury oohe
% the plaintiffs reputation, ana f thc
jury believe the charges i'm the hrllcie
are untrue. yct if they further belieNe
ulaintiN is q person of bad fepnialo
that fact must be taken into account III
the consideration Of damages sustained
bv plaintiff. and that person oI pau
reputation is not entitled TO the same
measure OF lamages as one O.. Sood iepu-
tation. The Burden of proof was on
the defendants.
rtf QUESTION or Noif'E.
II Byrd wrote the article and small
revised 10 for publication, and the tlaie
meuts made therein are untrue, but luat
prior 20 the publication they believed
them TO he true, ana puphshed bdiu
article with "a view 10 the pubic Bool,
and with no reason TO suspect the ialsilS
Of said conclusions, or the evidence or
information upon which they were Daseu,
sucn circumstances are entitled 10 ~
considered in mitigation OF damages. III
The tRy hehsc the book coairacts OF
1870 and lsHi were good adopuons ana
contracts but that plaintiff was bribec
TO give bis cons M, then plaintiff Is guilty
OF the charge OF bribery, as If said con
tracts or a0OptiOns were bad. When the
Jury come TO consider whether of hol
the defendants. or any Of them, are
liable for punitive or Yindiciiye damages
If they believe that plaintin had Tor
wears concealed his money III
secret drawer In order to prevent Ger
tain judgment creditors from securing
uayment OF debts due by him; thdt ne
had himself encouraged the belief that
he had no money or estate subject 20
the payment Of his creditors, that the
defendants had. by plaintiffs own con-
duct. believed him 10 be without means
had heard rImOrs that he had been
hribcd hy the American Book Company
IN March. lS9o. and March 1884; that his
character was bad and n under this Inn
preston as 20 his means and character,
and with their knowledge Of those ru-
mors. the fact that he had deposited
5000 in bank April -. 1890. that he
paid a large sum Of money IN April, 1871,
for house In Charlottesville. came 10
he had been bribcd, believing the fact 10
bc true. although they may not have
been justified In the charges. and may
have been deceived as TO the f0ufces
of plaintiffs money or his motives in the
way he deposited or invested them, then
the jury could. even II they believed him
innocent OF bribing. consider such facts
i'm determlng whether any of defendants
are liable TO punitive or vindictive dam
ares