The record-union., 1897-10-10


tempt to offer an explanation
The speaker again turned to the artl-
Gle published in the Bee" He asked
what private citizen had been referred
to who sought to crafty political am
bition. There was only one man named,
he declared, and that man was III.
Weinstock This article, he said, ap-
peared ten days after the first charge
had been made, and after Weinstock
had given it the lie. They had in the
meantime interviewed everybody sup
posed to know anything about the case,
and had ascertained that the charge
was unfounded-they again reiterate
the direct charge.
The Bee after intimating that
Weinstock was innocent, the speaker
said, went on to say that he probably
knew of the intention of Sheehan and
others to form the combine.
There was at least one man in the
courtroom who wished to hear the
defendants go on the stand and at
firm the allegations made IN the ar
ticles. He referred to the statement
that he himself had advised that the
parties concerned, if called before the
jury, We're to all forget everything re-
hecting on Mr. WeinStock. He had
been in hopes they would go on the
stand and testify concerning it. But
they did not dare to do so, and when
they were asked to go on the stand
and justify their statements they re-
fused to do so. How can they, then,
plead any mitigation of their offense?
Oh,
When a man makes a second publica-
ton of a matter that shows actual
malice and admits of no palliation
They published a lie, and they knew
it, and, not satisfied with that, they
published it again ten days afterward
1t is libel and nothing else.
The court would tell them that
where defendants in their answer, un-
der oath, justify the allegations made
in the original article, that shows actual
malice, and there is no need to prove
implied malice. There is no question
but that plaintiff is entitled to dam
ages, and the only question is the
amount of damages. The law admits
that no amount of money can COM
pensate for injury to a mans reputa-
ton, but the only way it allows him
to secure redress is by an action for
damages. There is no other way for
him to get into court for compensa-
ton.
How much damages shall be given
then? That must be determined by the
circumstances. Plaintiff is engaged in
a business that extends all over the
coast, and the people who deal with
- 4 s,rF lit ,,I~., fa1~r
toWnsmen do, and judge him by what
they see published about him and
scattered all over the coast. The law
allows punitive or exemplary damages
in such a case. When plaintiffs boy
went to his teacher in grief and spoke
of the article he was told: THE peo-
pie here all know your father and his
character, and do not believe these
charges Yes" said the boy, 'but
the paper has gone to thousands who
do not know him. and they Will believe
it"
The only way to reach such men is
through their pockets. That is the
only way to make them respect their
neighbors and the community and
obey the law. The time has come now
to teach them this lesson If the jury
gives a verdict for defendants it will
say that Mr. Weinstock is guilty Of
what he is charged with, and will thus
destroy his reputation. 1t is the jury s
duty to protect other citizens who de-
mand protection from these men, for
who knows when his turn will come to
suffer from such outrageous attacks?
Why have these people not before
of I1o
charges of wrong-doing. when they say
they do not believe he has done wrong.
They have not done it, and they never
will. There is only one thing to be
done, and that is to say to them: You
must respect the reputation and good
name of every citizen, and if you do
not a jury Will give a verdict against
you that will force you to do so& viii
the jury do so? If it does, it will earn
and receive the thanks of every honest
citizen in the community. If any man
questions the verdict, ask him why
these men lied as they did, and why
they did not do justice to Mr. Vein
stock. One such verdict would be all
that is necessary to teach them that
they must respect right and justice, and
it will give notice to every other paper
in the State to the same effect. Such
a verdict will be protection to every
man, woman and child in the State in
future, for the jurors and their fam
lilies, as well as others. They might
temper their verdict with mercy if
they wished but when they did so ask
themselves if these men had mercy on
Mr.. Weinstock, his wife and his chill
rrix
the mercy they save to others. He
asked the jury to give a verdict that
was just and right That was all he
asked.
The court read his instructions to the
jury, as follows:
First he gave the definition of libel
from the Civil Code, and charged the
jury that the definition was very broad
and included almost any language
which upon it's face has a natural ten
dency to injure a mans reputation,
either generally or with respect to his
occupation, and that if they believed
that any part of the article complained
Of would expose the plaintiff to blame,
censure or reproach or would tend to
injuge him in his reputation or occupa-
ton and is false, the article is 1ibelous,
and it was the jury's duty to find that
fact. IL any part Of the article set
forth in the complaint, when reason
ably construed by the jury, imports
anything of a character concerning the
plaintiff or holds him up in degree
to censure or reproaeh and the same is
false, then the article is libelous, and
it IS the duty Of the jury to so find.
1t makes no difference in what manner
a newspaper may publish the words
complained of. whether as the opinion