The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-03-13
SUPREME COURT SUSTAlNS
JUDGE SPENCER IN STARK CASE,
Justice Brace Lays Down the Law as Affect
ing Lobbyists and Publications
Concerning Their Acts.

slos and q. f is said; .nss.s,e Q: the slight h
o otnsis 4easo 0f y ,s5nss to s, LITTLE n. u 5RSss.,, and 1adr 70,
and not easy to dlsentangio or define. il, has come
TO be generally accepted that ths CHARACTER Of q
dence that he did Or did not do an ac, charged
49, 1t is sometimes said that tho plaintiff
e sa ne n mas. UPON nS5 ds pIen Of tr ethtsi a.s h his s Sl5t
character as evidence in dlsproof OF the cLarge
ton Of a defendant. charged with crime. bI, this
exception Is generally repudiated." The author
'I In e To@ s1se adioe on as sls G n IN an a'i LIBEL g q H. !; Il j,
said: 1T Is a much-vexed question whether In
in i s agslS. s Of the d damage a.Iss i he h Ris'a SUSTAINED
Introduce evidence of his good reputation prior
rs upon all others relating to proceedings in an
action. we can do no more than call attention
may be true that in an action for Islander OF IL
bel. the reputation of the plaintiff is in issue. 1t
the reputation OF thu piaintlT is assumed to be
good until the contrary is shown. and that. unless
up as a mitisatory circumstance or his reputa.
tlon is otherwise assailed, he is no. permitted
the subject; thus 1t has been held that evidence
cannot be s1yen Of the fairness Of plaintiff
IS pleaded unless attacked by the defendant. But
held, also, that where the general issue only is
p pEod ssar .as PlainsH may give evidence OF his
The authorities on both sides of this proposi-
far as VIC arc advised. tho question has never
ys. been passed Ta upon n, directly Ire IL by this =, court w In
said that IN D'. Civil actions II ~ the .sf, oharaetsr Of
neither party until as.ailed can be inquired in.
TO-" unless 1t is put IN issue by the nature OF
the proceeding. Gutzm!!ier W. LacKman. q Mo.
iss: Rogers w. TEpost's Aamin = 81 Mo- 10;
In issue only In that elass Of cases. such as libel,
:IsndeT. etc. in which 4, its value is to be n, con,
Is. McLuer; ? 20 I, I; said; Quitting xs shsra Sd..
fected. but that 1t Is Of particular Importance in
the suit Itself. as the character Of plaintiff in an
for seduction" Porter VS.. Seller. q Penn. St.
81. In those excepted cases. Character affects
law a Permitted to consider /; In assessing dam,
a ass n and / It Is IL int that st,I sen- ap that ,b It a Is saia 1hh at
issue"
,h 1ha rue and j. r &c esduesa IN ron this sn State ss,s1 sse y ! to
be that while proof Of plaintiffs good character
Is not admissible In the IN nrss instance so, as ,,, sxi,
Of the matters with which he is CHARGED in the
in the event that tho jury should so find. As
, ,sSs s sSss', ssae VA ai sss. f issl. w sy . the Jury IN r En-
fusIns this evidence It !. not reversible error:
Is assigned as follows:
ao THE os sSsst erred br Inn In sstsntan,s in inc fs1s tba, t the
court, against the objection OF the plaintiff; al
%l,!ss shs F' in s,s Ssln sn 9 Hs 'h ss ii e aR Ns. 0! TSe
Beard Of fresident and Directors St. Louis Pub
psrm s%faSS' ii regard ss a' to IT tho .h saD, .est mates ss'ss1 Of stats {
s es rel; f. Ru' Is'.i. p Ys; Ees sSbe Of Pi ,s this t and p tIe
essiS's sd d.; aeali th sS %syid ssses q i ii sa''i as s" to tn. the
contract with Dsedrlch with the said corporation:
exposition. ., Dyer. .Mabry. 'vieth, Elsner. swsa:
nsyy: MeM Nc hg IAN and Il Ha,1sl: and parts ,, ;her s9
S @issss the 70 ! y sa:s G sF n s1p;n ses' Of N March, ssa.' 1891 81.
and = nd A APT Ms 1884, s,,, and ns sylas1ss In rsI 1,nI,s thereto Q;
merchants tax. which occurred in isa."
deenee Of the defendant IS that It's plea Of ius,i-
Wien When. the the def nnss5Ile' matter complained o, is
in general terms. as that plaintiff is a murderer.
s ssss. 5e ms., p upon xai,anlins M inrsrs sTss
S Sist,s sss u sfs p.a Sc shs. the %st Ri9ip 5hs, may Re x e a s.
matter charged is itself specific it is %suftieient
:. sss. s45:ss s; " 'FElD shs! iei fssFss L so sEqs; fen L
SSs!SE' ka,s sss ss; Naa ~ aas IS: G ;ssi Rss ! DUES Ss;
tNsT York). 2ss. Justification on the ground of
It it1 IS .a nssa mot to g 3u . . So t mach ' oe t faaf dsfam ana
tory matter ~ Is aotionable or SO much as con-
to .reDsa, and j. justify : every slrs't Word i %, a ,he alleged
defama.9ry matter. 1t is sufficient II the sub
sssas on 81 e Giss aD s a sf fn : Be sss aGs1l9 ss: Town
The substance of the defama,ory matter
IS tie rspresentativs Of a corrupt snsi c combine o;
the School Board and tho leader Of a lobby
have fattened on tn. corruption Of the PRESENT
system and are working for a continuance OF
& j Hspsrsa,'t csty t to { q de 1salesa the ,A eivia feS %9Fsi1s
school bill in the Senate. It would seem that
sh's Ssfr g lie L 'q pa4iisaiszr s Rs;tsa to he a acaia ts be
sa11sa o upon That to m msss; and a. ta aI1.s q pie; "a Of n. ne
plaintiff s in no position to urge t that OBJECTION
Of the court below was not called to this or any
o eisss asfs ee thu In int dnsTen. 81 BY sr %Ss,sa. plea.
as@ ,r ins'ro oe e. s or sy:n in the mo,.ea for a
to be urged as ground for reversal seisafiI here eHe
s%;sSS V 1as st u Is & hs asn' r II NO. Go. 81, sn9 snd 1T cases Sc;
court in the keiiehsr case. u and in the ep sniSene of
n regard .,cIut to the h i Rntledse case. ought to have
he trial. This ev dc se't seems to ~a Says ,h sss. %. on
i Htssss as as se se wh,s gpo n 1 s4s g Ssla %a. &c s1 nastti Ss
from the dsfsndsnrs new ssgre o. e1 n
UPON q that Hn, sas, ss ea Which, say ho It nsa n shs bearing InPy
Sors reashea n NJ its aslibeIatlons: The ob3ecs-
incompetent and immateriai::" II competent MI I for
any purpose 1t was admissible over such ob1ec. |
! aesSins Which hi pa aFs fsn'f fr r Ie their an, nature T: save '
,ot sansyds seld q, that o,i In such case this court win
s sssss1se 'S s' sb Ss siSn,ssiis!s f # w Be-: fE1Sn.dp ,Ss
SCHOOLS vs., -ftisley Hers, ~ Mo. 1853. loo. Cit;
Iissit. vs.. McrEan. IS Mo. 50: N State s'' vs.. i0f Adams En,;
e Mo; sos; Peeple,s Bank w scalzo., i7 No.
Lumber Co. vs. Rogers. 145 Mo. 445.) We hnd no |
error in the rulings of the Court on the admission |
II evidence for which the Judgment should be
a. It will be observed. In the directions Of the |
Court. that after .instructing the Jury very fair |
y upon all the Issues Of the case the Court. |
o further enable the Jury to decide the questions |
n the case. Instructed tho jury as follows:
THAT In the absence of evidence to the con- |
lcter of a man to he good. That the Board Of /
President and Directors of the st. Louis Public |
Schools had no right to engage any enc TO lobby |
or or against or work for or against any bill In |
he Legislature, affecting in its provisions their |
erms of. office and to appropriate or expend /
my OF the public funds under their control for |
purpose. nor had any officer of theirs, as a |
representative Of the board. the right. nor was
t his duty in his official capacity. to lobby for |
II against any such bill or work for or against |
my such bill affecting their terms of office
md to receive public money OF the school fund
or expenses In such employment. and that any /
UGH conduct and appropriation OF money or ac-
eptance OF the sarne under such appropriation |
3 without warrant of law, IL against the policy /
{ republican form OF government. and can prop
rly be criticised. commented upon and rebuked
" any paper or individual In any appropriate
nd proper terms. |
For while any individual Is permitted and
ften is moved by duty to present by way Of pc
ition or public argument his views and opin-
ons and reasons for or against any measure
ending before the Legislature of the State. this
belongs to him as n constituent part of
he sovereignty and cannot be employed bv an
H. I.a~1 rtN~ fR~N11