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

might find that in the one case the
publication was properly made, in
proper manner, while in the other
case you might find that it was an
improper publication, made in an
improper manner, although the sub
ject matter Of it might have been
proper for public information. We
will explain that more fully to you
further on.
The defendant in this ease it APP
pears, is Il joint proprietor with Mr..
Hugo in paper published 1T Du-.
shore in this county, known as the
Sullivan County Herald. There is
no dispute about this fact, and there
is also no dispute about the fact, for
the defendants own testimony shows
it, that on the DIST of June 1899, the
article complained of in the in'lict-
mcnt and the caricature complained
of in it were published. BY the
publication we mean not only that it
was printed but that il was given to
the public, or at least was received
by parties other than those connect
ed with the press that published it.
And there were number of witness
es called who were subscribers, who
had received this paper, and read the
article, hence the publication seems
to have been proven. The next
question that would arise is whether
the matter as published is libelous.
Now, so far as the subject matter is
concerned, we have already said that
that was matter proper for pub
lication, and that in itself it would
not be libelous. Whether it becomes
so by reason of the comments made
upon it in the article published, or
by reason of the caricature which
was intended to illustrate the article,
l presume is a matter wholly for
your determination, and with that
the Court has nothing to do. But
we will give you the rules that we
think you will have to be governed
by and to which you must apply the
facts in order to ascertain whether
it was a libelous article, published
i'm the manner which it has been
published.
Although matter may be proper
for public information, yet it does
not follow that because it is of that
character, it can be made the pretext
for defaming and villifying a man,
and therefore where the article on
its face would show an improper
motive, and would show upon its
face that it was intended to defame
and bring into ridicule and contempt
the party, without having any justi-
fable motive for it other than vim
dictive One-I mean if the article on
its face would exhibit those indica-
tions-then you would say that it
was libelous, although it was mat
ter proper for public information.
Again, where the matter is, as this
is, proper for public information,you
must be satisfied, as l said before,
before you can convict, that it was
done maliciOusly or negligently. l
have already adverted to one way
of determining whether there was
malice, and that is from the face of
the article. If you find such intrin-
sic evidence in the article itself as to
lead you to believe that the motive
was an improper one, and that he
was actuated by the impulse to injure
the party rather than subserve the
public good, from that you may infer
malice, or malice may be proven.
That is, the Commonwealth may
prove express malice by actually
showing by witnesses that the publ
cation was prompted by i'll feelings
toward the party concerning whom
it was published ,and malice is really
sometimes as we'll proved by circum-
stances as it is by actual, express and
positive testimony. Now, there
would be no difficulty i'm arriving at
the conclusion that the matter was
malicious if you have express testi-
mony, and it was uncontradicted,
that the party did ii out of revenge.
Such statements if uncOntradicted
would of themselves indicate that of
course it was malicious article.
Then, even though it might not be
malicious, yet it might be libelous if
negligently made and was not true.
4