Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1900-06-28
Bernice Echoes.

asking for a new school building.
Thanks to the man that started it,
for if there is a town in the county
that needs a new school building,
this is one. We have the largest
number of children of any town in
the county and yet have the poorest
School houses are
the headlights to civilizations; then
let us keep them trimed and burning.
Thos. Payne went to Philadelphia
last week to have an operation per-
formed.
The S. l.. & Coal Company have
let the contract for putting down 5
bore holes on some of their coal land.
Mr.. and Mrs. Joel Saxon spent
several days at Philadelphia last
week. They also called at West
Chester to visit their son Gordon
who is attending school there.
Mrs. l.. c. Boyd, of New York,
was the guest of Mr.. and Mrs. II. w.
Taylor the latter part of the week.
Flem O'Brien visited his parents
at DuShore Sunday.
Chrrge of Judge Metzger in the Case OF
Commonw ealth VS. John &. Scouten on
an Indictment for Criminal Libel.
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:
This is a prosecution for libel. The
in this case, John G.ScOut-
en-, is charged in this indictment, in
the first count, with having publish
ed libel on Conrad Kraus, who was
an associate judge of this court but
who is now dead, by a caricature con-
tained in a paper published by him
in partnership with a man by the
name of Hugo; and in the second
count he is also charged with libel
on the same Conrad Kraus, by hav-
ing published certain matters in ref
erence to his salary and mileage, and
certain comments that he made
thereon.
You will observe that the publi-
cation of this libel is concerning a
person who held public position
public offlcial-and therefore is some
what different from the publication
of scandalous matters in reference
to a private citizen. For instance,
the character Ofa private citizen cam
not be assailed with impunity, and
even the truth may not avail the
defendant in the case of the publica-
ton of libel of and concerning a
private citizen, although we find that
newspapers nowadays do publish
many of those things which they
have certainly no right to do. But
when we come to- public official
they do have right to fairly criti-
else their official conduct so long as
they do not do it maliciously or neg
that is to say, they have a
right to make fair criticism on the
of an officer who holds Il
public position, and this results from
the fact Il at the entire public is in
il, the doing of their public
Therefore where Il publi-
cation of that kind is made and is the
subject of the libel, the first question
is whether the matter published
the officer was matter
for public information, because un-
der the constitution of Pennsylvania
although he may publish it yet he
still must not do so, even by way of
criticism if it is a matter not proper
for public information. There has
been an Act of Assembly recently
passed which makes it the duty of
the court to determine that question,
the subject matter of the
libel complained of is a matter prop
er for public information. And up-
on that point we say to you that we
think the subject matter of the libel
in this case was Il matter proper for
public information; that is the public
had right to know, and any party
had right to communicate to the
public the matters that were COM
i'm this libel so far as
relates to the salary and mileage
drawn by the associate judges. The
entire public was interested therein,
it was proper that they should be
informed of the facts. There is,
however, difference between the