Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1900-07-12
Chrrge of Judge Metzger in the Case of
Commonwealth vs John G. Scouten on
an Indictment for Criminal Libel.
Continued from last issue.

/
Continued from last issue
On the part of the defendant in this case
it is contended that these articles were
published in good faith That the defend
ant had probable cause and reasonable
grounds for beliving what he published to
be true, and that he also did ii III proper
manner, and he calls witnesses to show
certain facts upon which he based his in
formation, and which he claims led him
to believe that what he has stated in these
articles was true. lie has called a num-
Der of the preceding associate judges who
were predecessors in office Of Judge Kraus.
to show that they received much less, both
in mileage and salary than Conrad Kraus
received, and he says that that is one OF
the facts upon which he based articles.
He also saws that in addition to that he
examined the court records and the court
officers, or has communicated with them
in reference to the matter, and satisfied
himself that there was no material increase
in the business, and he also testified to
certain other matters which | may have
forgotten, but which you will remember
and from these facts and others he wants
the jury to say that he had q reasonable
ground for the publication Of these arti-
cles. Now, if there had been nothing
tlo. al I,on ba n ,ara ia n =
that Conrad Kraus received certain
salary and certain mileage, it would seem
to me that that night be q clear jusitica-
tion, and there could hardly be question
about it, for then it would be said that he
published Just exactly what the books
show to be true. But that is not all.
There are certain comments made in the
article which is alleged to be libelous in
this case, and the picture or caricatures
are ola certain character, with certain
comments made thereon, also from which
the commonwealth argues that he lost his
privilege; that, although it was privi-
liged communication if these matters did
exist, yet by reason Of these facts the
privilege was lost, and that he had no
right to make these comments and take
the pretext that because he had stated
substantially the truth in reference to the
number of miles claimed and the salary
received, that therefore he was not guilty
of libel. Now, this is the very issue.
The point is did he make a fair, honest
publication of this salary and OF the mile
age, or did he after making statement OF
that kind accompany it by such com
ments, and by such pictures, which when
examined would induce you to believe,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that he ment
to detame and injure the prosecutor, and
that was the motive for the publication,
and not the public good Because, if
that was his motive he is not privileged,
and he has no right to complain if he
should be convicted.
| think it is also perfectly fair for the
Court to state to you that we know Of no
evidence in this case that shows that any
of these fees or salary or mileage received
by Judge Kraus were illegal. We know
of no evidence that they were illegal. The
evidence does show that they were more
than the Others received precedn z him,
but that does not prove that ConradKraus
while he was on the bench, did not make
any more time than they did, or had any
more mileage than they had. If Judge
Kraus even would not have needed TO be
here as often as he was, yet if ne had
right to be here. and he availed himself of
that right to come here, he had right
to be paid for it, and it would not be illeg
al. That would be a matter entirely left
to the discretion of the man himself
whether he world come on all occasions
or whether he would not. lie had right
to be here, not only in jury courts, but in
any of his predecessors did not feel that
way, and did not attend the argument
courts and motion courts, they probably
had right to be absent, and they ought
not to have been paid if they were absent.
The mere fact that he received more
money might be a suspicious circumstance
but it does not prove an illegal taking of
fees in itself, and could not be made the
occasion OF a sianderous article. | do
not say that you could not publish those
mere facts, for you could, and do that
with impunity, but you could not make
them an excuse for predicting upon it
scandal, which would defame and ruin
the man against whom it was pointed, if
such be the effect Of the article; and that
is one of the matters for you to determine.
You will bear in mind in this case that
the na ri les are of hiVh stap1inp The