The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1897-06-24

Judge Taylor at IL O'Clock Monday
deliverd to the j,ry in the case of Mrs.
Alice Rex against Mrs. Hannah De-
muth, an able charge, purposely emitting
comment on the evidence aud setting
for h the law in such plain and compre.
bensive terms that all might understand.
After recitlng the contentious in the plead
ings and going over the alleged causes
Of action the court said
:" The burden is on the plaintiff to show
the speaking of the words, or the speak
ing of them substantially as laid q the
charge or charges, and IL the plaintiff
cl,ims that they were spoken with ex-
press malice the burden is on her to show
that. II you believe from the evidence
that the defendant, on or about Novem-
Der l, 1894, spoke of and concsrning the
plaintiff, in the presence and hearing Of
Others or another, the words in the first
cause Of action in the petition set ont and
Gil ged to have been spoken, to-nit:
Mrs. Rex stole feather from my store, ;
or that enough of the words stated iu said
first Gauss of action have been proven to
substantially constitute the charge i'm
pnted to plaintiff, and that this charge
was imputed Co plaintiff, then you must
find for the plaintiff on this issue"
The same law was laid down with re-
ference to the other causes of action.
With reference to the cause: Does
Mrs. Rex know she Is accused" the court
said: Words spoken BY way of interro-
Cation if imputinR crime, ara action
able, and it is not necessary that the
charge should be made in direct terms;
it may be made by iusinnati1n, aud
mbiguous words are ISLANDERS IL the
hearers understand them to impute a
crime"
The court defined express and implied
malice, and then went to the mater of
the truth or fal'ity Of the charges IN ade
The court said:
Our statute provides that in action for
damages for libel or SANDER the defen-
dant may plead and prove the truth of
the char2e in justification, and if the
justification is pleaded and proven &c the
satisfaction Of the jury, that would defeat
recovery. But Justification is not
pleaded iu this case. Certain evidence Is
offered in mitigation Of damages, and
matters in mitigation are such ss 90 to
the damages only, and not tn the cause
of action, in an action like this, Of dam
ages for slander, the defendant may offer
evidence of the truth of the charge con-
bsined in the defamatory words, not as a
defense, but in mitigation of damages,
and if the jury fud the charge to be true
they may reduce the damages to a nomi-
nal sum"
Concerning the Woman's Relief Corps.
which has shown such an active interest,
he court said: 1T is claimed by the
iefendant on the trial that much Of what
she did say, some of which Is relied on BY
plaintiff as ground for recovery, and
some to show express malice, was spoken
BY her tie earnest entreaty end Impor-
iunity of some of the plaintiffs friends of
jhe Relief Corps. II she uttered any de-
'amatory words sued on at thu importun-
ty or solicitation Of plsintiff's friends, it
would not be privileged on that account,
out you may consider the circum stances
the speaking of such words
Is may have been proven to have been
poken on the question OF malice" The
ury wasallowed to go to dinner, and at
o'clock Monday afternoon began to
on the case.