The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-11-13
Taxes hlALlCETONlAKE LIBEL
Interesting Opinion Of Judge Wallace in
Sui. Arainst James z. Roeers.

Interesting Opinion of Judge Wallace in
Sui. ASainst James r Ro~ers.
The Times has secured copy OF the
opinion Of Judge A. W. Wallace. OF the
CORPORA ton Court of Fredericksburg. in
the case of DR.. F. F. Nnde. OF King
George county, against James q. Rogers.
Of the same county. which is OF more
than ordinary interest because of its in
depreciation Of the law OF libel and its
ANALYSIS, OF what constitutes libel.
The case was one in which the defen-
dant criticized the Beard of Health and
Board Of Supervisors Of King George
county in way the members thereof
deemed unjust and libelous. and flve.suits
were entered against Rogers for damages.
the other four being dropRad when the de-
cision went against Dr. Ninde.
The fret ballot of the jurors revealed
the fact that they were unanimous for
acGuittal One instruction. 10 the effect
that the plaintiff. as a public officer, had
to show malice on the part of the de-.
PENDANT to constitute libel. secOed the
case. as Dr. Ninde the plaintiff. had tes-
titled on the stand that he and Rogers
had hitherto been good friends. and that
he was the defendants family physician
at the time the article il question was
written. The jury. therefore acting On
tnis9nstruction. found for defendant
The instructions of Judge Wallace to
the jury We're az follows:
Il It is the privilege of any citizen to
crticise the conduct of any public off,
cial as to his official acts provided that
the language used IS not SO strong and
vio!en. as to raise an inference OF malice
The court therefore rules that the conf
munication to the Star. which is the foun-
dation of this action. was priviieged. but
the court leaves it to the jury from the
publication and all 1.-The evidence to say
whether the pr,Ei'eged occasion has been
used in good faith and without malice.
or was used malicinusiy
SO. Malice. in fact, is the evil intention
with which one deliberately and without
jrstfcatioR or excuse does wong act
which mag be injurious to others; and
therefore, if the Jury believe from the evil
dence that the observation-disclosures pub
lished the communication In the Star
upon which this action is brought with
evil intention to do a wrVns and an in-
jury to the plaintiff individually. socially
or profcssionallya and without Justification.
then the plaintiff Is entitled 70 a verdict:
but. if the iurr5 believe fr.yn the e-.iience
that the defendant. exercising his privilege
as citizen to cyticise the Official acts
of the plaintiff. wrote such oomrnunica-
ton without such evil intention or with
Justification chen the defendant is en-
titled to verdict Of not guilty
SO. The court@in this case having ruled
that this communicat ton. rncn which this
action is brought. as nrivI eyed the bur
den is on the plaintiff 10 prove malice in
fact. that is. that the pr.-i:eged occa sion
had been abused and used in bad faith
with an evil intent to do wrong
and injury to the plaintiff and /
if the jury belive from the evidence
that the plaintiff has proved such malice.
they must find a verdict for him. II the
jury believe that the plaintiff has not
proved such malice. they must find a YER
diet Of not guilty The jury cnn find 4
verdict for the plaintiff assessing dam