The San Francisco call., 1898-01-28
LAW OF LIBEL
 WELL DEFINED
Supreme Justice GarOutte Up holds the Liberty of the
 Press.
There Is No Slander if the Charges Are Proved to Have Been
 True.

Justice Garoutte of the Supreme Court yesterday rendered a judgment in the case of pr. Joseph C.. Hearne against M. H. de Young, proprietor of the San Francisco Chronicle, and J. F. Brunt, the San Diego correspondent of that journal, in which he interprets the law of libel in very clear-cut manner.
 The case was on appeal from a judg- ment based upon a verdict of a jury awarding pr. Hearne the sum of $1O000 for the publication of an alleged libel in the paper named. The article dealt with two occurrences, happening at different times and at different places. The first statement of the alleged libel set forth that Mrs. Hearne had sued her husband for divorce, which was granted; that her complaint was that of cruelty, and that the testimony at the trial showed that the doctor was a man of ungovernable temper, and when in rage he would hurl dishes at his wife, besides using vile and abusive language.
 The second part was the publication of incidents concerning the murder of Amos J. Stillwell in 1888, in Hannibal. Mo, the from newspapers of Hannibal and Kan sas City. In this it was set forth that robbery was not the motive, and that Dr. Hearne was the family physician and was the first to discover the crime and awaken the servants. pr. Hearne some time afterward married the widow of the IL. who sued for divorce
 In Hearne's libel case he set forth that the first publication was untrue and that no testimony was given that he hurled dishes at his wife. Relative to the sec ond, he complained that the reference to the murder of Stillwell insinuated that he was the murderer or accessory; also that malice was the underlying motive Tor the publication complained of. At the trial Of the case the defendants denied that they were actuated by malice and they proved that the witnesses testified that the doctor was violent and that he had hurled various articles at his wife, although some of his testimony was ruled that there was no fnsinuation that Hearne had murdered Stillwell. Justice Garoutte took the broad interpretation of the law when he said:
 It Is well settled that a defendant is not required in an action of islander or libel to justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter. It is sufficient if the substance, the giSt, the sting of the libel ous charge be Justified. Immaterial vari- anceS and defects of proof upon material matters go for nothing, and if the gist of the charge is established by the evidence the defendant has made his case"
 The Justice also holds that the lower court should have allowed the defendants the privilege of proving the truth of the charges, if such they could be called, in the article complained of. In other words that the publisher should have been per- mitted to have made the best defense he could to show that he was not guilty of the charge of which he was accused. Of the alleged insinuations that the doctor murdered Stillwell the Justice says that the published language was plain and fore was not libelous. The Judgment and order were reversed and the case was re. manded for new trial. This will prac- ucaliy throw the matter out of court.