Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-03-17
Daily gtuushet 5u,lrual.
THE CHARGE
Of Judge Strout In Case Of George R. McNall,
vs.. kennebec Journal.


10 the jury in the case of George r. Nc
Nally vs. the Kennebec Journal:
Gentlemen of the Jury:
Mr.. Mentally. the plaintiff has brought
this action to recover damages against
the defendants the admitted owners and
publishers of the Kennebec Journal, for
alleged libels upon him published by the
defendants in their daily, the first upon
November 18th and again upon october
2lst and again upon November 4th and
one or all of them reproduced in their
weekly edition.
1t is necessary for the plaintiff to show
what Is termed in law a publication of Il
libel; that is. that it has not only been
written or printed, but that 1t has been
distributed among people so that it has
come to the knowledge of persons. That
is not disputed in this case. 1t is not
questioned, but the articles We're printed
in the Kennebec Journal in their regular
issues and Were circulated to their sub
scribers in the ordinary way, SO that they
fell under the observation of a great
many persons.
Now a libel is the malicious reformation
of a living person made public by any
tation or effigy tending to provoke him
to wrath, expose him to public hatred
contempt or ridicule. or to deprive him
of the benefits of public confidence and
social intercourse. You will have the
newspapers containing the articles, part
of which in each instance are claimed by
the plaintiff to be libels 1t is question
for you to determine what is the fair
natural meaning to be attached to the
language used in all the articles. and
whether not, under the definition l
have given you of libel, they are libels of
the plaintiff in his capacity as deputy
sheriff.
Now the plaintiff says. and there are
five counts in the writ. that in the issue
of October 18th there was an article from
which he selects certain paragraphs
which he claims are libels Foster Mel
son arrested but escapes Deputy Sheriff
McNally, tmeaning the plaintiff. of Clin-
ton, Kennebec countyD went at work on
the case, (meanng the case against Eos
ter Nelson aforesaid) and to no little eN-
tent. is responsible for the result. Omean.
ing the escape of said Foster Nelson of
todays action on the part of the author
tiles Now there is evidence before you
that that part of the article was written
before the arrest. The arrest was made
on the 10Th of November: but in reading
the article which appeared on the l'th
you will notice, for it is for you TO say.
whether it is one continuous article all
through, apparently, or purporting to
give an account of transactions which
had occurred and whether or not this
phrase that Sheriff McNally. to no little
extent. is responsible for the result.
would or would not be understood by the
ordinary reader of the paper which was
issued on the 4th, to refer to the escape
rather than to his efforts to make an ar
rest. You will judge whether the article
goes on as continuous one. and then
closes up by telling about pistol SHOTS ana
Nelson's escape. and the people We're wild.
and some said it was Il put up job. etc.
The defendants are responsible for any
matter appearing in their columns which
is libelous, unless they have some legal
Justification. whether written by the ed
itor proprietor or anybody else. Ana
you will consider whether or not YOU as
practical men. or any other person. read
ing that article of the 1ith purporting to
give an account of the transactions the
day before would understand this phrase
that Sheriff McNally was to no little eX-
tent responsible for the result. as re-
ferring to the escape which occurred up
on the 18th.
Now to allow a prisoner voluntarily to
escape is a criminal offenSe. To allow
him to escape as the result of bride is
another criminal offence. either of them
punishable with serious consequences.
And it is for you to say whether that ar
ticle would be understood by the general
reader as saying that Sheriff McNally
was largely responsible for the escape.
whether or not that was charge upon
Mr.. McNally of neglecting his duty as an
officer and voluntarily allowing the es-
cape, and whether it was not charging
him with the criminal offence of allowing
a prisoner in his custody charged with a
crime, voluntarily to escape.
Upon october 21st there was another
publication and that part complained of
is Nelson arrested. Says he gave Nc
Nally So to allow him. (Nelson,) to es-
cape" And it also says that Nelson
made proposition for him to escape Was
or was not that in explicit terms, charg-
ing Mr.. McNally. the plaintiff, with com
hitting the crime of bribery by accept
ing a bride, and also the offence of per-
hitting Il prisoner in his charge as a
criminal, to escape? If so. it would be.
under the rules of law. lbeous on the
4th of November there Is another article
complained of. The headlines. believe
there is testimony to show. were put in
at the office by somebody in charge there
but the body of the article was written
by McCone Nelson Talks. Tells story
of escape and capture to the Journal
Fully substantiates every despatch or
,Npt,,fr F,1,,r,, ".
plaintiff through his counsel says tina,
that is an affirmation on the part of the
paper of the truth of the statements which
had been before made and a reaffirmatioI
of what he calls slanderous and libelous
matter. And then that article goes OF
with Foster Nelson's interview in whicl
he says that McNaly proposed to him u
escape for a consideration, ant
that he gave him S. which McNally &C
cepted, and that thereupon he WAS per
the substance of it. 1t is for You to iudg,
what the evidence means, and if it means
that to you as practical men: why thel
by McNally in his office of deputy sheriff
as a criminal neglect of duty to hold hi
prisoner and violation of law in accept
ing. a bride and allowing him to escape
and the charge would be libelous unles
there is some justification for it, / do no
understand that the defendants counse
insists strongly that the articles are no
in and of themselves libelouS. You vii
have them with you and can read then
all through and will apply your practica
common sense to them and determine a
to the meaning of the language and wha
would be understood by person reading
them, and what charge. if any. is implied
or would naturally be understood to b
made, by the person who read those arti
Giles. And the libel, if it is a libel. is t
be considered according to the common
understanding of people who read il
What does 1t convey to the mind of thos
reading it? What does it mean? An
that meaning so determined by you, a
practical sensible men. constitutes tn
charge, If there is charge, and makes
libel if it is libel
Now the law implies malice from til
publication of any libel. 1t is not incum
bent upon the plaintiff who complains o
being libeled to prove malice in order I
maintain his action. The fact Of the publ
cation of matter in itself is libelous nipple
what lawyers term legal malice. Nov
that does not mean what you and | a
private individuals ordinarily understan
by malice. 1t does not mean necessaril
illwill. hatred. spite. disposition to do
wrong. But il rather means that if