The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-20


Second-A publication, when it concerns
person and is discommendatory, Is always,
in the absence of any evidence to the con-
trary, regarded as uncalled for and Is pre-
sumed to be malicious and false.
The court then proceeded:
BY consent of counsel the question wheth-
er this article constitutes a libel is left to
you. If you find that the publication con-
stitutes a libel on the plaintiff. within the
meaning of that definition contained in the
first charge. in the absence of justification
by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to
a verdict for at least nominal damages The
plaintiff was a candidate for governor, and
the newspaper press had right to comment,
within certain limits, on his acts. without
being legally responsible If the comment or
criticism were made in good faith and with
this privilege does not extend to false allie
cations Of fact derOgatory to the private
character of the candidate.
The extent of privilege in communications
is to be determined by balancing the needs
ana good of society with the right of an
individual to enjoy a good reputation when
he has done nothing which ought to injure
his reputation.
l charge you that these allegations, If false,
tended more to injure the reputation of the
plaintiff than the publication. if true would
the sacrifice Of the individual rights. If the
charges are untrue is so great, that the
public good to come from the publication Of
the charges. If true, is outweighed
l charge you, therefore. that there was no
privilege in this case. and that the plaintiff
must have verdict unless you believe that
the defendant has shown by fair preponder-
ance of the testimony that the charges al
legged to be nbelous were in fact true in sub
stance.
That brings to the question Of damages
If those statements in that article are libelous
the presumption is that they were actuated
by malice, and that they are false, and if
you find that they were not in substance true,
l have stated, the plaintiff is entitled to
damages. which
damages.
I charge you that the plaintiff is not en-
titled to any special damages in this case,
for he has neither pleaded nor proven any.
He may, however, be entitled to recover
damages for the mental distress that the
publication may have caused him to suffer.
When it is shown by the evidence that the
defendant in making the publication was
guilty of actual malice, or culpable negligence
or wantonness, manifesting willful indiffer-
ence TO the rights of or effect of the publica-
ton upon the reputation of the plaintiff, the
jury will be justified in giving the plaintiff
that is, you may be justified, and are allowed
to, but are not compelled to, give the plant
iff in addition to the compensatory damages
tive or exemplary damages; that is,
damages in addition to the compen-
impartial judgment Of the jury the defendant
ought to pay, in view of all the circum-
stances. by way of punishment and example.
In considering the subject of malice on
the part of the defendant, which will justify
the jury in awarding exemplary or punitive
damages on account of 1t, you are instructed
that whatever is done willfully and purposely,
If 1t be at the same time wrong and unlaw-
full, and that fact known to the party doing
It, Is, in legal contemplation malicious. That
which Is done contrary to ones own convic-
ton Of duty or with willful disregard of
the rights Of others, whether it be to compass
some unlawful end by unlawful means, Or
to do wrong and unlawful act, knowing it
to be such, constitutes malice, as defined by
law.
In determining whether the publication was
malicious or wanton on the part Of defend
ant, and the degree of malice, it is the duty
of the jury to consider the character of the
publication complained of, and, in addition
to that, the publication by the defendant in
the Dispatch Of defamatory or derogatory
statements relating to the matters contained
IN the original publication or bearing upon
them, and the circumstances under which
the publication complained of was made. The
subsequent publications by the defendant
may be considered as going to show malice,
but not as an aggravation of the damages.
In regard to the evidence introduced
by the defendant to show mitigation Of
damages, Judge Bum instructed the
jury that the mere fact that Mr.. Lind
was a candidate for governor would
not alone mitigate the damages. But
if the jury believed the article was
published in good faith, and with the
sole desire to inform the public Of the
character of John Lind and not with
the desire to injure the man himself,
such belief would justify a mitigation
| of plaintiffs damages If the publisher
took all reasonable precautions and
published only what he believed to be
true, even though the allegations might
be false, the damages should be miti-
gated. In this connection Judge Bum
drew a distinction between legitimate
news and mere scandal.
Judge Bum informed the jury that
hn I011r6 Of
rested upon the plaintiff but that the
burden Of proving the truth Of the allie
cations rested upon the defendant, who
must prove it by fair preponderance
of the testimony The burden of prov
ing the mitigating circumstances also
rested on the defendant.
In conclusion, Judge Bum cautioned
the jury to decide the case wholly on
the evidence and not to permit either
religious beliefs nor political sympa-
thies to enter in the slightest degree
into their consideration of the case.
The charge concluded, the jury re-
tired.
Plaintiffs attorneys took no excep-
tons whatever to the charge, but Mr.
Mum, in behalf Of the defense, except
ed to nearly all the charges.
When court opened in the forenoon,
Mr. Mum at once began summing up
for the defense. He first discussed
the press and it's liberties. The United
States constitution and all the state
constitutions zealously guarded the
liberty of the press. The people de-
manded that the characters Of the
men who proposed to govern them
should be freely discussed. Such in
quiries as this were necessary when
1t was charged that the press had
oVerstepped the limits. When a news
paper believed that it's sources of in
formation were reliable and true. Ii
had right to publish news received
through customary channels. Mr.. Lind
had been a man of local reputation
when he became a candidate for gov
ernor, the people of the state had a
right to be informed of his qualifica-
tiOns.
There had never been an article pub
nShed where more care was taken
to establish the facts There has never
been an article published which was
more thoroughly warranted by the
facts. The reporters of newspapers
were, as a class, a fair set of men:
they are, as rule, fair and impartial
understanding human weaknesses AMI
regarding them with charity and ex-
posing only hypocrisy and falsehood
The article in the Dispatch was pub
ilshed without malice as was testified
to by the managing editor. Mr.. Lind
was more to be blamed than any one
else. If he had wished to set himself
rlght before the people, why didn't
he dc it?
Mr.. Lind Qnterrupting)-M Mum.
was there a paper open to me in this
city?
you might have come to the Dis
patch"