Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-03-17

not you find II existing. At II argued. and
! think there was evidences: that there
McNally. and that originated, as ii ar
gued, from the fact that McNally didn't
want McCone to go with him to make
lee not the slightest feeling In the world
about it. McNally says he didn't want
him to go with him, perhaps feeling that
he was reporter and might be too anx-
ious to put an item into the paper that
he thought ought to be kept secret. until
some results were reached. The plaintiff
says that the articles put him In the
Sheriff Viles, and that even the bringing
of Nelson to Waterville was attributed to
somebody else than McNally. and that
various things OF that kind run through
The plaintiff says this indicates malice
on the part of McCone. 1t is all for you
TO judge. You can. as practical and rea-
@ the nrticles over what the ~ gns
was, whether 1t was simply to inform the
public or whether there was Ill will or
anything of the kind. 1t is denied on the
part of McCone and 1t is argued that the
articles are true. You are to find the
facts. You are responsible for them and
an only responsible for the law.
Now gentlemen, weigh all the evidence
In this case calmly and dispassionately,
as | have no doubt you will, with de-
sire to arrive at the truth. Carefully
consider the very able arguments on the
they are consistent in their suggestions
touching the evidence in the case they
may be of service to you In marshaling
the testimony. Consider all the testi-
mony.
II you come to the conclusion that
either of the articles is libelous. or any
part of them. and that the charges Were
true. your verdict would be for the de-
PENDANTS for the plaintiff was a deputy
sheriff. If they are not true. not shown
to be true by the defendants, then were
rules that l have given YOU. II they
were, then your verdict should be for the
defendants. If not true, II the articles
are libels and not justified, under the
dict should be for the plaintiff. And the
law implies some damage always. when
ever a wrong is done. The amount oil
that damage depends upon the evidence
in the case and the judgment of the
jury as to what 1t should be. If entitled
to recover he would be entitled to such
tanned by loss of reputat ton in the com.
munity. pain of mind and annoyance anc
vexation and humiliation which has
come TO him in consequence of this. &c
be estimated by you in dollars and cents.
and as nearly as you can. 1t is difficult
thing to do. and yet you must do II. II
you come to that question. as sensible.
practical men.
The plaintiff claims what is called pun
alive damages. exemplary damages
Those are damages which under some
circumstances jury are autnorlzeu
add to the actual damages. That is t
say, you find man is damaged one dol
lar or hundred dollars, a thousand
more or less. actual damages. Now II
the case is one that justiiies punativt
damages you add to the actual damage
you find such sum as you as reasonable
men think ought to be added by way o.
punishment TO defendant for the wront
he has done. 1t is not every case u
which punative damages are allowed. II
is one where the wrong complained o:
was maliciously and wantoniy done
without any Justification. recklessly ant
| from i'll will and "A reckless disposition
toward the plaintiff. AZ you, find tina
Mct'one in writing these articles, or som
of them. was malicious toward the plain
tiff. and that he wrote the articles
some part of them with wicked design
| to injure him. regardless of the truth
and for the purpose OF dlsgraclng MIN Il
| the community and destroy him as al
officer. that would be case in which Yot
might add to the actual damages SOM
punative damages. But the jury are al
ways to be cautious upon that subjec'
and exercise good judgment.
Now | say to you that If he Is entitled
| to recover he is entitled to recover 70
| the injury to his fair name, his fame II
| the community. The defendants hav.
called witnesses whom you have hear6
who testified that the plaintiffs reputa
| ton for morality in that community i.
| not good. The siandering or iibeling OF
| man of good reputation. IL believed by
part of the community, may damage HI.
good reputation, smirch 1t good deal
| Vt may take years TO recover from II
| If the reputation is not good why thef
| it is for you to say how much lh'
| amount is entirely a question OF fact 10
| character in the community that is on'
| thing If his character is not of tina,
quality then it is for you 10 say hoH
much it has been damaged.