The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-12-10

The territorial supreme court met
yesterday with Chief Justice Merritt
and Associate Justices Bartch, King
and Rolapp on the bench. 1t was
Judge Rolapp's first appearance on
the supreme bench as the successor OF
the late Judge H. w. Smith
Clerk L. NJ. Bailey read the minutes
of the previous meeting, after which
business as follows was transacted:
In the case of the people VS.. William
Glasmann and the Standard Publish
ing company, appellants, the Judg-
ment of the lower court Of the Fourth
district was reversed and the case re-
manded with directions to grant a new
trial. The opinion was delivered by
Judge Bartch and concurred in by
Chief Justice Merritt and ASST ciate
Justice King.
The defendant was indicted for the
publication of an article in the Ogden
Standard, of which he is the owner,
on October 80, 1894, attacking the char
acter of L. r. Rogers, who was a cam
didate for election to the constitution
al convention ON March 6, 1895. The
Standard Publishing company and
Glasmann were each found guilty, and
Judge Smith sentenced them to each
pay fine of $500 The defendants
moved for a new trial, which was de-
MED, and the appeal from that ruling
was taken.
Twenty-seven specifications of er-
rors in the admission of evidence and
the exclusion of other evidence and in
instructions to the jury were urged as
reasons for reversal.
The opinion stated that the court be-
low erred in refusing to allow a wit
ness, Gatrel court stenographer, to
read on the part of the defense from
his stenographic notes the testimony
of Eugene Borel. the testimony being
offered for the purpose of rebutting
malice and to show that the alleged
ubellouS article was true and WGS
privileged under the statute which
provides that mo reporter, editor or
proprietor of any newspaper is liable
to any prosecution for a fair and true
report of any judicial, legislative or
other public official proceedings, or of
any statement, speech, argument or
debate in the course Of the same, eX-
cept upon proof of malice in making
such report, which shall not be implied
from the mere fact of publication"
The court also erred in sustaining an
objection OF the prosecution to the
question propounded to the witness
Glasmann: 81 will ask you to state to
lication was nna1e.''
1T is evident" says the opinion,
that the prosecuting witness, when
he became a candidate for office, Of
fered his character to the public so
far as his qualifications and fitness for
the ONCE were concerned. and the pub
ltcation on which the Indictment was
founded, though defamatory, belongs
TO the class of privileged communica-
tons which is protected if made in
good faith and upon reasonable and
probable cause and without malice
The opinion further says that the
judge, by his declaration in th1. pres
ence Of the jury and the instructions
to them, determined that the defend
ants were guilty by the remark that
the defendants in this case are
charged with publishing certain mat
TER with respect to a citizen of this
town, which is libel. 1t is libellous by
its terms and charges not only crimes
but charges matters which are in
tended to make man infamous and
ridiculous in the eyes of the com,.lun-
ity. This, the opinion held, WIS
wrong, and on these grounds the new
trial was granted.