Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-23
EVIDENCE is ALL IN.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PACED

u IUENOU ~ ALL lA''
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PACED
I, Is not necessary for the plaintin 10
proye malice, but that the law VIII inier
malice from the said charges; ana IN es-
tirnating the amount Of damages "hich
the plaintiff is entitled to recover, III ,ns
event of the Jury believing as aforesaid
the said charges, OF any OF them, ~ ps
untrue, and the jury will CONSIDER al
the facts and circumstances OF the case
in evidence before them, ana they hdsc
a right to consider as elements goins ~
increase the damages the character OF
the defamation as charging hs',
hubble officer with official corruption ana
briherv in office: the mode and
extent of its publication and circuiatioh'
whether or not there was manifested
reckless indifference TO or wanton dlsre-
gard of the rights of the plaintin IN the
publication in question; whether or not
any desire to enhance the sale or popular
ity of the paper by a sensational or taking
article, entered into the publication OF
the said article; whether or not the aru-
Gle was published at the instance OF
"A disappointed aspirant for the school-
book patronage; and the plaintiffs official
position as Superintendent of Public In
structIon of the State of Virginia, the
damage and injury to his reputation,
and the pain and mental anguish result
ing TO him from the said defamation
and it's publication; and the Court
further instructs the jury chat II they
find from the facts and circumstances
Of this case, or from the publication in
question. that there was a reckless In
difference to or wanton disregard OF the
rights of the plaintiff, then such reck-
less Indifference TO or wanton disregard
Of the rights Of the plaintiff amounts
10 an intentional violation of the rights Of
the plaintiff, and the jury in
such case may also give punitive or vim
dictve damages-that is. such damages
as in their judgment may be proper by
way OF punishment to the defendants,
or such of them as may be found guilty
and as will operate to deter them and
others from similar wrongs.
INSTRUCTION NO. 2.
The Court instructs the jury that not
only is the person who composes a IL
bellous article for publication liable IL 1t is
published, but also the owner of the
paper in which 1t is published and the
editor, if he caused or knowingly al
lowed the same TO be published therein;
and, while the directors Of a corporation
which is the owner Of a newspaper are
not liable simply because they occupy the
position of directors. yet II the president
Of directors OF a company assist ana
concur in any libellous publication in
newspaper belonging to such company,
knowing, or having reason 10 know, that
such publication may be libellous, those
nj opngf1rrfpo~ In fhp pffHllpI-
ton are guilty OF the publication and are
liable; and the plaintiff may, at his cleo
ton, sue one or all or any intermediate
number Of the persons so guilty And
the Court further instructs the jury that
the law makes no distinction between
wrong-doers, but holds each and all of
them liable for the whole wrong done;
and, if the jury shall determine that the
plaintiff is entitled to a verdict in this
case, there can be but one verdict against
all whom the jury may find guilty, and
there cannot be one amount against one
and different amount against another or
others.
INSTRUCTION no. 8.
The Court iustructs the jury that,
whether or not the PLAINTIFF offered a
bride 10 the witness DANES is not one
Of the issues which the jury are sworn
10 tIN III lfls case anu NAAtlh Aii' NfANNi--~
of the witness Dames) on that subject
cannot be considered by the jury Sx-
cept as bearing upon his animus towards
the plaintiff and as affecting the weight of
the witnesses testimony as to the gene
raj character OF the plaintiff; and the
Court further instructs the jury that
the alleged evidence of the witnesses,
Edmond Parr and Amos Diskerson, Of
fered by the defendants, on the subject
of a bride alleged to have been offered
Parr, was not admitted by the Court, ana
is not TO be considered by the jury; ana
the Jury are not to consider the ques-
tlons asked by counsel for the defendants
OF the plaintiff on his contamination
or The extracts from writings read by
counsel for defendants TO plaintiff as a
basis for questions. as introducing PROOF
on the subject Of such alleged brides; but
can only consider the answers OF the
plaintiff given to such questions, ana the
defendants are bound by the answers
of the PLAINTIFF on that subject, and can
not contradict them.
INSTRUCTION NO. 1.
The Court instructs the jury that they
must not regard any alleged evidence
which has been ruled out by the Court
even though they may have read II in the
newspapers or heard it otherwise. Such
alleged evidence has nothing to DO with
the case. and cannot be considered by
the Jury or referred to by counsel
INSTRUCTION NO. ..
The Court instructs the jury that (as
already stated in one Of the instructions
which has been given, under the plea
OF Justification the burden Is on the de-
PENDANTS in this case pleading that plea OF
proylng the truth of their charges against
the plaintiff. and that they cannot sustain
their plea by merely making out case
of suspicion, but that they must prove
the truth OF their charges TO the salts
faction OF the jury by n preponderance
az testimony. and If such defendants
fau TO so satisfy the jury by pre-
nonderance of testimony the jury must
dnd for the plaintiff against such OF
the defendants as they shall ind guilty
of composing or publishing the newspaper
article in question.
INSTRUCTION NO. 6.
Tho Court lnstructs the jury that the
law assumes that the general reputation
Of witness for truth and yeracity Is
GOOD. and that the burden is on the
person attacking such general reputation
to establish that 1t is otherwise, and when
this fact is put in issue 1t must De
proved by preponderance OF testimony
iust as any other fact In the case.
Instructions for the Defence.
INSTRUCTION NO. 7.
The Court instructs the jury that II
thev believe the article in the declaration
Is libellous. and that the plaintiff is en-
titled 10 damages from those responsible
therefor the simple fact that W. w.