The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-09-22

trayene the c.mmon law doetrine OF giving
publicity To public matters. is at least
mighty technical. e pscizlly is 1t severe
in the manifest absence OF any nance
on the part OF the paper. but. on the con-
trary. evidencing commendable spirit OF
public enterprise. But II Is asserted by
those who would restrain. our privileges,
1t is your duty, II you know of any oifi-
cal misconduct on the part Of public
officer, not TO print 1t in your paper, ana
iujure his chances for re- election forsooth,
but to file Information in the courts ana
prosecute him. This is so palpaby i'm
practicable, and such n flat-iooted denial
CT the public function OF the press, that
con ment seems to be entirely unnecessary.
Odacr cases, varying in circumstances
but equally restrictive in their effect.
could be cited, but the proportions OF my
subject will permit OF discussion only up
en- general outlines with but the briefest
references.
Let us see what the courts have held
with reference to the publication OF Grim
lnal matters.
In the case OF Houston Printing Company
SIS. Dement, ct al, page 55S. "A Southwest
efn Reporter. plaintiff was arrested by
deputy sheriff on suspicion OF horse tnett
but without a warrant, and was subse-
quently released, 1t being shown raat he
was innocent. Tie defendant (HoustoE
rest, and upon ascertaining that the plain
tiff had shown himself innocent and had
been released, promptly published full
correction with all the circumstances. re-
lieving plaintiff OF any odum. Meanwhile
plaintiff died. but upon trial those to whom
une cause of action survived recovered
verdict against the defendant for $1,000.
the higher courts holding that
ITO sustain defendants plea of justifica-
ton 1t was necessary to prove that the
charge against the plaintiff was true, and
that proof only that the charge had been
made as published could not sustain the
plea of justification. and was not a defense
to the action"
Further. allulng to plaintiffs death and
the survival Of the cause Of action, that II
C. G. Dement, were still tle plaintiff in
this suit, he could recover for mental an
gush; sud II the action, as we have held.
survives to the present plaintiffs, 1t fellows
that they too may recover such damages
1t would seem that in every case OF
defamation the intention should be nec-
essary element; that to constitute libel 1t
must net only be Injurious. but, according
to the law books done with malice Minor
says libel must contain. among ot1er es-
sentllls that OF malice which he defines "a
"a wrongful act done Intentionally with
out Just GAUGE or excuse" But lack of in
teaton gives lis no protection, as our
Texas courts have held unvaryingly that
where the matter is NOT clearly privileged.
the publication Of false or deflmat0rY
Statement Is presumed on its Pace to have
been made with malice and evil intent.
They not only charge the turies to It's eff
feet. bat win not allow the presumption Of
malice to be robutted and submitted as
matter Of fact to the jury Thus. If in the
course OF our legitimate business of col
lcctinE and printing the news in cool
faith the news Of the courts, or of the acts
of officers Of the law. or any other branch
OF public business in which 4 is presumed
the public has an interest aud right to
know despite all care and prudence an err
ror is made In mans Initials and We print
t J. + Smith instead OF j. w. Smith who
was arrested. under the present status we
arc guilty OF libel against j. r. Smith, il
there happens to be such an Individual,
and a malicious libel at that whether or
not we ever knew or heard Of aim. In other
Nords in civ1 libel we arc heatcn at the
outset under the instructions Of the court.
and he only function of the jury Is to say
how much we shall be mulcted for under Il
false hypothesis
Algo in the matter Of damages we have
reason to complain. The decisions hold
that tao dcfamatorf publication being
shown. damages are implied and the Jury
must find for the plaintiff whether or not
hn establish the fact Mat any artupl dam
arn ala result n him either in tho lass cf
money or friends, This ouestign of dam
age No well AS That of malice should ha
matters of proof from all i3e circum-
stances left for The Jury 10 decide In tbis
regard the newspapers ought at l,eet he
placed ON an even footing with the railroad
CORPORATIONS to recover damages aeinst
which il is necessary 10 establish actual I'M
Jury.
have cited but a few cases. There are
many others equally restrictive and / subj
mt. dangerously approaching inyaeion moi
only upon our sacred public rights hnt our
rights of uroper,v as well bv reason Of onr
increased and unusual liability 10 sults for
supposed damages. There are 90 many
crooks and turns in Inc law ss # now OK.
,sts. so much uncertainty and so many CON
fllcting decisions. that 4 reputable news
paper conducted In GOOD faith hardly 1nows
What TO nrint II has come 70 this thot mo
only soee course Won c1n determine uno,
when contemplating piece OF news I, 70
roIiov mo s3yir, yrrilb no o,son p..,
gave the vcunr man conte,pnIaiing r,ntri-
mony. "run4." Invest rat,ens mo nnb,,c
affairs. discussion of nse fitnas n csnd,e
dates f1r office. criminal matters az All
Lirds .,l ,,o,4,,. 4, ~ ..,.,,., 81. -, ,,.,.,, =