Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-23

unfinished By the PILOT Publishing Com
many. and that the statements therein
made are untrue, but that prior 10 the
publication OF the article compialnea OF
said defendants were In the possession
of evidence and information. which would
lead an unpreJudlced mind to the belief
I'm the conclusion arrived at In said ar
ticle-namely, that the plaintiff In MS
official capacity has acted corruptiy with
said American Book Company or It's
agents in his dealings with said com
pany; and that, being In possession OF
such facts, they published said article
with a view to the public good, and with
no reason to suspect the falslty OF SAID
conclusions of the evidence ana inforina-
ton upon which they were based. then
such circumstances are entitled to be con-
sidered by the jury In mitigation OF the
damages sought to be recovered in this
action.
INSTRUCTION NO. TO-
II the Jury believe that the book-adop-
ton contracts Of 1890 and 1884, made hg
the Board OF Education OF Virginia, were
good adoptions and good contracts, bI'
that the plaintiff was bribed 10 give his
assent or approval, or support, TO said
adoption or contracts, or either OF incm,
then the plaintiff Is as guilty OK the
charge of bribery as II said adopdons
Of contracts were pad
INSTRUCTIONS NO. II.
When the jury come TO consider whether
or not the defendants, or any OF them,
are liable for punitive or vindictive lam
ages, II they believe from the evidence
that the plaintiff had for vars concealed
his money in a secreat drawer I'm orier
TO prevent certain Judgment creditors
from securing payments Of d,.ts due by
him; and. that the paintiff had himself
encouraged the belief that he had no
money or estate subject 10 the payment
OF his creditors; and II the jury further
believe that the defendants had by
the plaintiffs own conduct believed
him to be without means, ana
had also heard rumors that he HAD been
bribed by the American Book Company
in March, 1880. and in March, 1871 ana hdd
also heard that the plaintiffs character
was bad: and, If under this impit sslOa IS
TO his means and character, ana Win
their knowledge of these rumors. The
facts that he had deposited 5000 n me
Planters National BaaN, April =. lss'
taking a certificate Of deposit therefor
payable to himself, and ihat he PAID
large sum Of money in APRIL 1911, Tor
house in Charlottesville. taking the decd
In his wifes name came 10 tne nnOw.'flse
of defendants, and tnat they charger re
had been bribed. believing the fact to be
true. although the defendants may hot
have been justified in The charges that tie
plaintiff was bribed. and may have sc'r
deceived as 10 the s1urcss of The pan
tiffs means or his motives, m the way
he deposited them or invested Them
the jury are at liberty. even II they lie
lieye the plaintln inu1srat Of The charge
Of bribery, 20 consider. such facts Ia IL
termining whetaeg any Of the deten' ants
are liable for puu.tt"e OF VindictiEa dam
ages in this aCt.0n, bat the jury may
also consider al tie evidence i"aiing t.
show actual malice IN the same connec-
ton.
INSTRUCTION No. l..
II the jury believe from the evidence
that the way in which the plaintiff seeks
to account for the funds In his possession
April 2, 1880, and April IL. 1884, or at either
periods. is false, and that he did not de-
rive them from the sources or in the ways
stated by him. then the jury are at liberty
TO consider this circumstance in connec-
ton with the other evidence in the case
in determining the truth or falsty OF the
charges made against the plaintiff.
INSTRUCTION. No. -.
The Court lnstructs the jury that If
they believe the charge that the plaintiff
was bribed, as set forth in the article
sued upon. Is supported under the plea OF
Justification by preponderance OF tesu-
mony. then they must find for the de-
PENDANTS.
IL this was a criminal suit against the
plaintiff on the charge OF bribery it would
be necessary TO establish the charge of
bribery beyond reasonable doubt, but in
this proceeding, which Is Of a civil ma
ture. IL is sufficient 10 entitle the defend
ants to a verdict If the preponderance Of
the testimony on the Issue of bribery Is IN
their favor.
INSTRUCTION No. II.
II the jury believe from the Sddence
that the publications made in the Pilot !
newspaper subsequent 10 the publication
Of the article in question Of December y,
1894. and introduced by the plaintiff, mark
ed exhibits - -. were made In answer TO
utterances published by the plaintiff or
other parties after the appearance OF said
article of December %, 1894, in regard 10
the defendants, or any OF them, and were
made with view TO answer said articles,
the Court instructs the jury that in con-
sdering such subsequent publications as
bearing on the question OF malice OF the
defendants in publishing the article COM
planned Of they may and should also con-
slider In the same connection any eXplana-
ton of the causes leading to such suisse
quent publications and the motive Tor
which such subsequent publications were
made that may nave been given in evil
dence by the defendants, or any one OF
them; but the inherent character OF those
subsequent publications themselves must
also be considered by the jury, ana
whether or not any such proyoeation has
been proved as TO justify such subsequent
publications: and. further, that such cub
sequent publications cannot b. considered
I'm aggravatiOn Of any damages that may
be allowed in this case, but only on the
question Of malice in the original publica-
tio-.
INSTRUCTION NO. IS.
The Court instruots the jury that the
defendants. W. 3. Wilder, w. w. Gibbs
Luther sheldon, II. Y. Zachary. john
l.. Roper. d. Humphreys, $. @. Collins.
G. w. Kelinger j. w. Borum, ). H.
Brickhouse Ira b. White. T. G. White,
Frank busch and G. T.. Nerdier, are not
liable to the plaintiff in this action merely
because OF their connection with the de-
PENDANT company-the Pilot Publishing
Company-and II the jury believe. from
the evidence. that the said defendants
took no part In the publication Of the ar
tlcle of December %. 1894, in the declara-
ton mentioned, and that their relation
as officers and directors of tho said COM
pany did not require them TO supervise
or control the publication complained Of,
then the said defendants are not liable
in this action, and they must find for
said defendants. But this does not APP
ply TO the defendants. Samuel w. Small,
the Pilot Publishing Company, and
Richard Il. Byrd.
INSTRUCTION NO. l6.
II the jury believe from the prepon-