The record-union., 1897-10-07
JUDGE HOLL REPLIES.

Dected that the defense would mass all
Its forces in column and sWoop down
on the prosecution with all his power.
Instead, the learned counsel had en-
veloped the case in a mass of sophis-
try that envelops it like the mist that
comes in over the hills where he re-
sides. He would sweep them away,
however, as the morning breeze does
those mists.
The first question in considering a
libel is that the whole article must be
considered. The rule in the construc
ton Of language is that it relates not
only to the sense and meaning. but also
to all the circumstances surrounding its
all the circumstances surrounding its
publication, and in passing upon it, the
court must place itself in the position
OF the person hearing or reading the
matter complained Of and pass upon
the meaning of the language used. 1t
must take the meaning of the whole ar
tiele and not the meaning of a partic-
ular portion of it.
Counsel for defense laid stress on the
word indicate" The court has moth
lng to do with a technical definition of
the word. or even that Of the grammar
OF the language used. 1t must take
the meaning from the article itself He
could show authority for deciding that
the expression of an opinion is action
able, but he intended to go farther.
There is a difference between an opin-
ion not founded upon facts relating to
the subject matter and an opinion
founded upon facts ascertained by in
vestigation. The courts have decided
that an opinion of the former class
does and also that it does not consti-
tute cause of action, but there is no
question about the latter
Quoting from a California decision,
he said that the court, in passing upon
the question of libel, must place itself
in the position of the reader and judge
from that standpoint This article
claimed that a little red pocketbook
had been found, the entries in which
pointed to astounding disclosures that
would result in the upheavaI of mu-
nicipal affairs The article designat-
ed the matter as q huge conspiracy
against the interests of the municipal
ity. After an investigation of three
weeks by detectives in the employ Of
the Bee" it came forward with an
article headed "a Stupendous Charge -
as formulation of the results of their
investigation.
The expression that the entries in the
red pOcketbook indicate" certain
things is not an opinion, but a state
ment founded on the facts discovered
during the investigation, which is a
vastly different thing. A man may
say TT is my opinion there is a great
deal of gold in the Klondike," when he
has never been near it. But when a
man says 'It is my opinion that there
is much gold in the Klondike. have
been there and dug and seen the gold
that others dug out and I think it will
create an earthquake of excitement"
that is a very different statement This
is precisly similar case and the ''in-
dications" spoken of in the article are
founded upon the facts developed by
the Investigations of defendants Such
being the case it cannot be considered
an opinion.
The word indicate does not mean an
opinion. The dictionary says it means
ito point out" ito proclaim "to
show" Ito make known" That is the
ordinary meaning of the word and the
rule says that words must be taken in
their ordinary meaning or acceptation,
in constituting language. AS to the mat
ter Of an opinion, in some cases it has
been held that it Is not actionable, but
there are others in which it has been
held to be actionable He denied
therefore, that the word indicate" is
equivalent to the word opinion and
asserted that it means to show or point
out. He also denied that the law was
that an expression of an opinion was
not actionable. On the contrary, the
English law held that it would be dan
gerous to allow man to express his
libelous statements under guise of an
opinion. In the case of Edwards
against the San Jose Publishing Com
pany, the latter had stated that s'It is
reported that Edwards is TO have
charge of the SACK to be used to infiu-
ence voters. A motion for a nonsuit
was denied, the court holding that the
article imputed to the plaintiff a char
acter which, if true. would submit him
TO obloquy and that the court could not
avoid taking notice Of the fact that the
word sack had a recognized mean
ing outside of those given in the die
tionary The court held also that it
was we'll settled that words must be
accepted with the meaning attached to
them by the masses of men and that
the mere belief of the editor of paper
in the guilt or innocence of a person
cannot be received as a defense or a
mitigation Of the damages.
The next claim of defendants is that
no harm could come to the plaintiff
from the reading of the article accord
ing to their theory. On the contrary,
he claimed, 1t imputes to him the most
reprehensible conduct that can be ex-
ercised in the community. Taking the
section relating to the control of the
city's patronage, he said that it stated
that a combine existed for protecting
the gamblers for a certain amount. and
also for the sale of public offices to
the highest bidders, or for certain sums.
This would certainly be a most infa-
nous matter. 1t also states that a
combination has been formed, which
counted on j. u laws Tor support ana
John A. Sheehan and H. Weinstock to
control the fall election and the city
patronage. And defendants argue that
this charge does not do any harm to
Mr.. Weinstock's character, and that the
combination might have wished to puri-
fy politics and get good men into Of
fee. He admired the innocence of Mr..
Reddy in believing that such was the
case and that was what the article
meant. There is no authority for say
ing that the article stated the COM
bination was depending on Mr.. Vein
stock for support. On the contrary, TAX