The Portland daily press., 1896-01-28

which you will have no trouble, because
| understand that it is admitted that
this article was written by the editor
OF the paper, the it WAS published IN
the Evening Express Oh that day, or the
night OF July Bird; that it was circulated
as the Express is circulated, to large
number of subscribers; those facts are
not in controversy. 1t is also admitted
that the defendant is a corporation. Now
corporation can only act by it's officers
or agents, but corporation may be
guilty Of libel, may be guilty OF I'M
piled malice, as l have said, or. If the
facts Justify it, may be guilty of express
malice. That is to say, if tho editor OF
matter. publishes a libel, unless 1t is
Justified by some principle of law, why
then the corporation is liable for 1t to
the same extent as an individual, ana II
the writer or anybody connected respon-
sibly with the paper is a party TO tne
publication, and if it is proved that those
parties entertain express malice against
the plaintiff and published an article for
the purpose of doing him harm, wilful-
ly, without reasonable cause, then the
element of express malice would come
in against the corporation to the same
extent as against an individual.
Now YOU will have the article, you
have heard it read; you will have it with
YOU. Under our law it is for you to say
what the article means; what the charges
If they are chargeS-mean, and wheth-
ar or not they are libellous any of them
or all of them. Ii any of them are libel
lous and Others are not, why then, unless
there is some legal justification for their
publicst ion for them the defendants would
be responsible; if they we're all lhellous
the responsibility would 90 no further,
unless, perhaps, in the question Of DANA
ges, if you arrive at thai question.
If you find bat the article is not libel
lous in any part of it, that would be an
end of the case and your verdict would
be for the defendant. But if YOU find it
| to be libellous upon it's face then you
can go further and determine, under the
| principles OF law, which l shall give
you, whether the defendant is responsible
in damages for it.
| Now the defendant justifies upon two
grounds. In the first place he says that
| whatever allegations are contained in
the article affecting this plaintiff are
true and in the second place, that if n OF
true they were published with an honest
intention, for the purpose of giving prop
er and rightful information to the pub
lie, and it was done upon the informal
tion, reasonably supposed t, be reliable,
with proper caution and without malice,
and therefore they say it is privileged
communication in other words they are
not responsible in damages
Now as to the first point-the article
may be divided into several paragraphs
first, against whaG man is Deputy Sheri
Charles A. Plummer now plotting, by
the employment of needy man who
shall act the spotter that someone, no
has incurred the liquor deputy's dis
pleasure, may be punished. +"
The defendant says, in this branch OF
the defense, that it is true that the
charge OF employing spotter to punish
some person and employing to do that
some needy man for that purpose, is true.
The fact that the spotter, as he is called,
was employed in this case, understand
to be admitted by the plaintiff; he says
it was the usual custom in cases of this
kind; so, as tothat part Of the allegation,
the spotter, there seems to 5e no contro-
versy or dispute.
Plotting by the employment of spot
ter" Plotting. You ust judge whether
that means anything more than planning
or arranging to obtain evidence by
means of the spotter. You must DETER
mine-it is for you-what it means
Then comes what is perhaps the grava-
men of that charge" Someone who has
incurred the liquor deputy's displeasure
may be punished 1t is claimed BY the
plaintiff that that is an allegation that
instead of enforcing the prohibitory law
| from honest motives AID as law of the
state, that it was used fer the purpose of
Furnishing some person not from a
worthy motive, but from some revengeful
motive intended BY the plaintiff, which
is strenuously denied upon the other
side.
! Now the defendant says that that re-
vengefull disposition is shown by certain
testimony which he he's introduced be-
fore you. He says it is shown by the
complaint against MIR. SWEET for a
nuisance at tho time of the second search
and seizure, June 25th. think, before
any trial was had, and which, as defend
ant says, was not the usual or customary
practice and was an exceptional case in
this particular He says it is shown by
4 the efforts, which he alleges that the
plaintiff made to have SWEET plerd gull
ty, saying that, as they claim, it was very
impoi to Mr.. Plummer personally
that t should be conviction in that
that if he did not plead guilty, and If
M. PlumJner was obliged to show his
hand, that he should Institute all the
! proceedings under the law which he
could institute against him. The defend
| ant says that that shaws, with OF her
evidence in the CASE that there was n
| revengeful motive entertained by Mr..
| Plummer
. MI Plummer has given you his version
of the matter, and he claims that he only
did here what he felt was h duty to do
as an officer in the legitii . and right
full enforcement of the liquor law as he
understood his duty to be. Now what is
the fact? Ii is for you TO determine and
not for me.
Then follows the charge: .'Who will
be the next young man. etc., to take a
false oath?" 1t is said by the plaintiff
that that imputed the charge of subordi-
nation of perjury against Mr.. Plummer
Snbornation of perjury is in law an
offense, and it means procuring man
to testify in court upon material mat
ter in 4 case pending falsely In COM