The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-26

TO ecorn, ridicule, or contempt, or was
calculated TO render him Infamous
odious. or ridiculous. or to injure him IN
his office as a policeman. they must mo
for the plaintiff. damages not to exceed
the amount claimed In the declaration.
The Court instructs the jury that III
they believe from the evidence that the
defendant published the defamatory
words complained of. not bona fde, In the
way OF an honest criticism or comment
upon the conduct of the plainiff. In the
discharge OF his official duty. or In the
performance OF It's duty towards the pub
lie or for the reasonable protection Of
it's own interests, but with actual malice.
for the purpose OF injuring or humiliating
the plaintiff, then they may award In
their verdict, in addition to the damages
actually suffered by the plaintiff. exem-
plary damages to punish the said defend
ant for its unlawful conduct. But evil
dence Of wilful purpose on the part OF
the reporter Hiden TO injure the plain
tiff will not justify the jury I'm awarding
exemplary damages. To do so. they must
believe that the owners of the paper
were actuated in permitting the publica-
ton by such willfuI purpose TO injure
the plaintiff.
SUGGESTED BY THE DEFESCE.
The Court instructs the jury:
OF the case. the plaintiff being a po-
lice officer and the defendant news
paper company the publication by the
defendant company OF the words used was
privileged: and. unless the jury believe
from the evidence that this privilege has
been abused, that is to say, that the
defendant has awaited itself Of the occa-
sion to injure the plaintiff, instigated by
actual malice, and not by reasonable
criticise the conduct of the plaintiff, In the
discharge OF his public duties as police
officer. or, in like manner, to discharge
its own duty TO the public. or act In the
reasonable protection Of its own inter-
ests, they must find for the defendant.
Second. Even If the jury shall be
lieve from the evidence, of which the
article complained of is a part, that the
statements contained therein are In fact
false and untrue, and the criticisms
therein made are unwarranted, yet II they
further believe from the evidence that
they were In good faith believed to be
true, and that said criticisms were ger
name to the occasion, and were honestly
published. without actual malice. as criti-
cisms on the conduct of the plaintiff. in
the discharge of his public duties as
police officer, in the discharge OF its
duty to the public. or in the reasonable
protection of it's own interests, and was
not unreasonably severe and defamato-
ry, considering the object In view. they
must find for the defendant.
Third The fact that the words used
are strong. or tend to rdicule the plain
tiff, is no evidence whatsoever of malice,
If, on ths defendants view of the facts,
such words are justified; and II the evil
dence adduced, is In the opinion OF the
jury. equally consistent with the exist
ence or non-exis tence of actual mance
I'm said publication-that is to say, II II
fails afirmatively to establish to the sat
isfaction OF the jury, that the said pub
lication was induced by actual malice,
they must find for the defendant.
Fourth. The presumption OF law Is
that the publication complained OF was
made without actual malice. without
proof of actual malice in fact. the plain
tiff cannot recover, and the burden oil
such proof is on him.