The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-02-16

of justice It Is held that justices of
officers discharging judicial functions,
and the court cites with approval the
opinion of Lord Campbell to the effect
that, upon the question of privilege
the dignity Of the court cannot be re-
garded, and there is no distinction be-
tween court of pie poudre and the
house of lords sitting as a court Of JUS
tice. Judge Ritehie adds:
If on a hearing there Is no difference be-
tween judicial proceedings before higher
courts and those before a magistrate,
cannot see any difference between pre-
liminary ex parte judicial proceedings be-
fore n judge of a higher court and similar
proceedings before justice of the peace.
In hearing a charge and issuing war
rant, the magistrate is just as much ex-
ercisng his judicial function as Is the
Judge when he issues Il bench warrant.
The latter occasion Is as much eX parte
| and initiative as the former, and If a re-
port of 1t is privileged, as it is, the report
of the issue of a magistrates warrant Is
also privileged Police arrests, present
ments and indictments are part of every
days news. and II report of them is not
libeous because they are ex parte and
preliminary. SO much for the publication
of the fact of the issue of the warrant.
In hearing the charge, in determining
whether or not to issue the warrant. and
in issuing 1t, the justice was acting judi
cially and publicly. AS to the publication
of the statements under oath of the person
making the charge, the proceedings being
judicial and public l can see no differ
| ence in principle between the testimony
of hn npnsapntin,r i'm gtipb n
ceedins as this and the testimony of a wit
| ness at the hearing, or in the trial of IA
case in Il higher court 1t follows, from
what has been said that, If the pub!ica-
| tlon in question was II fair. correct and
| bona-iide report of what took place before
| the magistrate, 1t was privileged; and If
| so, the plaintiff is not entitled TO recover
unless he has shown express or actual
| malice on the part of the defendant. Out
| side of the publication itself there is no
evidence whatever of any malice in fact.
Whether that publication was fair, cor
rect and bona-ilde or not, is Il question for
| the jury.
The jury's decision, reached without
leaving the court room, was unani-
mously in the newspapers favor. This
| occurrence, in state famed for the
| severity of its libel law. is obviously of
| great and general Importance. 1t is,
| as the American modestly says, "a
| step towards better and more lust
| Interpretation of the law"
| Even those who We're in high glee
| when the LeXow committee was laying
bare the iniquity of New York now
say there is no necessity to take the lid
| off Philadelphia" In this remark the
Scranton Truth utters what we
| conceive to be an injustice. We
have not seen in any newspaper
editorial or interview, either Phil
| adelphian or otherwise, any asser-
| tion that there is no necessity to take
| the lid off Philadelphia" If Philadel
| phians want to take the lid off their
| local government and scrutinize the in
ner workings thereof, that is both their
| privilege and their duty. But 1t is
nothing less than ridiculous to ask the
| lid-remCving to be done by a commit
tee of state senators, who have no more
right to meddle with the municipal
government of Philadelphia than they
| would have to NEEDLE with the manage
ment OF the Scranton Truth.
| -