The San Francisco call., 1898-01-09
THE LAW OF CRIMINAL LIBEL A. M. Lawrence of the Examiner Is Held to
 Answer.
Judge Campbell Decides That He Libeled Claus
 SpreckelS.
He Cannot Evade Responsibility by Pleading That He Was Not Aware
 OfIts Publication.

Judge Campbell rendered his deci- sion yesterday in the libel suit against A M. Lawrence, managing editor of the Examiner, preferred by Claus Spreckels. Grove l.. Johnson was pres ent on behalf of the prosecution and Attorney Drum represented the de- fendant, as Garret McEnerney was engaged elsewhere. The defendant was also in attendance.
 The Judge held the defendant to an- swer before the Superior Court in 5000 bonds or $500 cash. The cash was forthcoming.
 The Judges decision is as follows:
 This is an examination into a charge of criminal libel preferred by Claus Spreckels against 4. M. Lawrence. The testimony showed and defendant admit ted that he was managing news editor or the San Francisco Examiner June [ 1eSl, the day the article comDained of appeared and had been for some months prior thereto, and has been ever since. The article was offered and read in CXj- oence and is ibelOus per SC It was a clipping from an interior paper. The QefenCant seeks to escape responSibil- itN because he had employed q com petent man. one C. s. Aiken to 5alecr cITpings from exchanges, and tha- he oeftrcant, being absent the evening of the publication at the theateE. did not see the published article until some time afte1ward. and. therefore. is not cSaree- able with the publication thereof The defendant admits he had the power to employ and discharge Aiken and 0trer assistants on the Examiner. Do these circumstances excuse defendant and render him guiltless of the crime of Ebeling MT. Spreckels?
 At the common law if a libe: appeared in newspaper the proprietor, the eli tor and the printer and the publisher were each liable, both civilly and crirn- inally. All the text writers agree in this. See Townshend on Sander and Libel Sec. h5; Odgers on Libel and Sander 157-294-32s; Starl1ie on Slander. 225; New ell on Defamation, 239-240-377-379.
 To the same effect are all the English decisions prior to the act of 6 and ! Victoria. See Rex vs. Williams Loft 759; Rex vs. Walter, Esp. 21; Rex vs Dpdd, ? Ses; Gas. 8: Rex vs. Clutch,
 By the act of 6 and Vic the rule was changed.
 The common law rule has been pro- nounced the law in many of the States of the Union. See Dunn vs. Hall. 1 Ind, 3l4; Com. ys. Morgan. 107 Mass, 199; Andres vs- Wells, Johns (N YD. Com vs. Menin, % W. N. C.. 43s CPa' or. Ses); State vs. Mason, 26 Oregon 273. Unless, then, the statutes of this State change the common law rule the defendant must be held. The law re- garding criminal libel will be found fully laid down in chapter 10 of title of part 1 of the Penal Code, sections 24S to 257 both inclusive.
 Section 253 Penal Code is as follows. viz:
 "Each author, editor and proprietor of any book, newspaper or serial publi- cation is chargeabie with the publica- ton Of any words contained in any part of such book or number of such news paper or serial.
 The English language does not contain any words that could make the meaning of this section plainer. IL means just what it says. viz: that each editor of a newspaper is chargeable with the pub lication of any libel appearing in such paper.-
 The section simply enacts the com mon law and does not weaken but rather strengthens it. I will remark that this section of the code changed sec I20 of the old act concerning crimes and punishments and made the jaw stronger in California than before.. In- asmuch as the law was changed -bv the codes we must assume the IsegfsIa- ture intended to change it, and to make it palmer and stronger against the libeler
 It is my duty to take the law as I find it. and to enforce it as it is written The law makes the defendant guilty.
 The contention of defendant that a malicious intent must be shown in crim- inal libel by direct evidence of witnesses because of the language of section~249 Penal Code avails him nothing because of the plain expression of section 250 of the Penal Code, which reads as fol- lows:
 An injurious publication is presumed to have been maucious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown
 In this case we have. l. A most in- F1v if.af