The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-27
VERDICT FOR The PLAINTIFFS.
!. wEINSTOCK WINS HIS SUIT
AGAINST THE BEE"
The jury finds in His Favor and
Fixes the Damage at Four
Hundred Dollars.

When court convened yesterday in
Department One, Judge Hughes gave 10
the jury the instructions prepared for
plaintiff.
He first gave them the definition of IL
bel under the statute. He instructed
them that the article complained of III
this case was libelous on its face, and
that the law presumed it TO be false, de-
famatory and malicious. The fact
that the defendants may have believed
that plaintiff made certain statements
u the Examiner" does not justify the
publication by them Of the article in
question. If, as a matter of fact, the
plaintiff did make the statements III
question: or if, as matter OF tact,
those statements. even if made by him.
ought not to have called forth criticism
from the defendants. and if the libelous
charge has not been justified, then he
Instructed them that the plaintiff is en-
titled to a verdict at their hands. The
sting of the libel is in the part that re-
ferred to the plaintiff as shield and
protection of boodlers and blackmail-
ers. It makes no difference that the
charge is that it says he appears,
or surrounds the matter with other Ian
guage of similar import. Thus, it Is
just as much libel to say that man
-..appears'' to De thief as to say that he
IS thief; newspaper managers cannot
escape liability by saying that it is re-
ported that a man is rogue, or that II
is rumored that a man is a rogue, OF
that man appears TO be a rogue; such
statements as that are just as lbeloos
as that a man is a rogue.
Evidence has been introduced by the
defense as tending to prove the truth
OF the charge that on April IL. 1891, Mr..
Weinstock appeared as a shield and
protection for boodlers and blackmail-
ers. If the jury found that on that date
he did not so appear, they were instruct
ed that their verdict must be for the
plaintiff He instructed them that
there is no law that requires man to
surrender a communication making
charges against another person to a
newspaper proprietor upon his demand
and that the plaintiff cannot be held
by them to be protection or shield to
boodlers or blackmailers, unless he did
some act which would shield them from
their just deserts or the punishment OF
the law.
He charged them that the fact that
the plaintiff on March Dist published an
article in the Record Union" relating
to the defendants in this case would not
justify the defendants in writing the
article of April 14th. The law gives
every man the right to investigate the
character of witnesses whom he thinks
Will be brought against him, and the
fact that he does or seeks to do SO by
conversing with police officers or d
Chief of Police does not give a newspa-
per the right to libel him. A newspaper
proprietor is not privileged as such in
the dissemination of news. but is liable
for what he publishes in the same man
ner as any other individual. The liberty
of the press is no more under the pro-
lection of the Constitution than the lib
erty of speech. and a newspaper pro
prietor is TO be judged by the same rule
exactly that any other individual should
ss'e judged by If he commits a wrong.
He defined the difference between NAL
ice in law and malice in fact, and said il
is not necessary in an action for libel
to entitle the plaintiff TO damages t.
prove express malice. He is entitled &c
damages if the article be libelous and
untrue, and, in addition to his actua
damages he is entitled to exemplary
damages If he proves the existence OF
actual malice on the part of defendants
If the defendants fail TO prove the truth
OF the matter complained of, the law
p.esumes conclusively that the state
ment was published and circulated mali
clously, and plaintiff is entitled to g
he1 ri <
libelous. is on defendants to prove ths
truth of the charges, and if they have
not proven it's truth. it is the jury's duty
to presume that the charge is false and
malicious. and find for the plaintiff i
is not necessary for plaintiff TO prove
actual damage. as the law infers actua
damage to him from libelous publica-
ton. and if the jury finds that the arti-
Gle complained Of is libelous the law
says that it is injurious and causes dam
age to him, and the jury's duty is t
find a verdict for him. No precise rule
can be laid down as to the measure OF
damages. but the whole matter Is left
to the sound judgment of the jury
which is to consider the injury to plain
tiff's reputation and standing. his out
ragged pride and wounded feelings, ans
may go beyond all these and award, II
addition to actual damages. what i:
termed in law exemplary damages: tha
is, damages given for the sake of exam
pie and punishment.
The truth of the libel must he proved
= the defendants by preponderanct
o. evidence; mere circumstances, rails
ing only a suspicion. are not sufficient
proof OF the charge. Mere silence on the
part of plaintiff in relation TO Won Ar
nold's letter does not constitute him q
shield and protection to boodlers anC
blackmailers.
The following instructions were given
for the defendants, among others:
The alleged libel is TO be understood
and construed according To the ccntext
and the approved usage Of the English
language. IT Is net necessary that the
defendants prove the truth of the ar
ticle complained Of by plaintiff word