The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-10-19

want of proper investigation he libel,
an individual he is guilty, although hs
did not intend to publish a libel.
Unless this doctrine is correct, there
is no protection for the individual IL
his reputation. Has the presumption
of malice existing in this case and the
fact of actual malice, if you believe il
proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
been rebutted by the defendant Little,
or has the defense raised in your minds
a reasonable doubt upon this questions
Let us examine the evidence briefly. II
is my duty to instruct you as to the
testimony of several of the defend
ants witnesses. The testimony divides
itself into two branches.
ALLOWED TO NAME THEM.
The defendant Little was allowed ia
name the persons who gave him the
information, and to state what they
said to him. These witnesses were al
lowed to testify so as to corroborate
the defendant. But, as I now recall
the evidence, only two witnesses tes-
tify that they informed Little that they
themselves were the recipients oi
money from the prosecutor to be used
for political purposes. You heard the
testimony of John J. O'Grady. He says
that before the publication of the edi-
torial article complained of, he in
formed the defendant Little that he,
OtIfaOy, ndU ten uOlldTS lrOdll lI6
prosecutor to work for Pryor and Kelly
in 1897 and had been promised a place
in the county jail.
You may consider that his testimony
is weakened by the fact that when
sworn before the commissioners in the
| contested election case he testified that
| he had received no money for his vote
| or for political services from anybody
| in the campaign of 1897. 1t may be
| true that he informed the defendant OF
this fact but even on that question
| the jury has the right to judge his
crediblity. The other witness in this
| class is Charles Teeter. He also says
that he had a talk with Mr.. Little in
| June, and told him that he, Teeter, had
received a little money from the prose-
cutor for political purposes or political
work.
The testimony of the other witnesses
| is of different character. I refer par
| ticuarly to the testimony of Mr.. Finn,
| MI Fellows and Mayor Molr. They
| testify that they gave information to
| the defendant as to the use of money
| for corrupt purposes in politics by ths
| prosecutor, but their testimony is
| based on what is known as hearsay
| evidence. They do not testify that they
| themselves received any money from
| the prosecutor. but that they knew of
| others or had heard of others receiv-
| ing money, and that this hearsay evil
| dence they communicated to the de-
fendant. This evidence is not OF very
| satisfactory character, but we ad-
| mitted it because if true it came to
the defendant and may be used by him
| as an excuse for the publication or at
| least a portion of the article in ques-
| tion, and for the purpose of rebutting
| the presumption of malice.
SHOULD HAVE GONE FARTHER.
1t may occur to you. gentlemen OF
| the Jury, that the defendant in the eX-
ercise of proper care as to the matter
| that went into his newspaper should
| have made further investigation and
should have verified the hearsay dec
Iarations made to him by the witnesses
that have mentioned. You will under
| stand that this evidence in regard to
the use of money for corrupt purposes
in politics only relates to a portion or
the editorial article published in the
Scrantonian on July 30 namely, that
portion which charges the prosecutor
with debauching politics in this county,
| and with the attempt to defeat Candi-
dates of his own party.
Does the explanation given by the
defendant Little as to the publication
of this part of this article satisfy you
that he wrote 1T for an honest purpose
and that he was not actuated by mall
ice? Is il OF such a satisfactory char
acter as TO remove the presumption OF
legal malice attaching to the charge
of the corrupt use of money in poli-
tics?
If il does, or if there Is a reasonable
doubt in your minds upon this ques-
tion, then the defendants cannot be
held responsible for the publication OF
that portion of the article. But that
is not all that is contained in the ar
ticle complained of. | have already
called your attention to other charges
tending to hold the prosecutor before
the public as a coward and a false pre-
tender. Is there any evidence in the
case which tends in any way to JUS
tify these accusations or 10 rebut the
| presumption of malice which attaches
to their publication? l can find none
myself. If there is none, then regard
less of the charges in connection with
the corrupt use Of money in politics.
| the defendant Little may be convicted
as he stands charged in this indiCt-
| ment.
have only referred to the editorial
| article There is another article pub
lished i'm the same issue of the paper
and which is complained of by the
prosecutor. 1t is entitled a Card from
a Workman" 1t has been read 10 you.
1t is not necessary for me to read il
again. You cannot escape the con-
clusion that it is lbelous in character
and holds up the prosecutor to public
hatred, contempt and ridicue.
WHY DID HE DO 1T?
Why did the defendant allow this arr
ticle TO be published? He tells you that
it came to the office~as a communi-
u Gconinued on Page lOl