The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1903-02-13
In $4,000 SOFT
Against Journal

of this woman forever.
Instructions Of the Court.
Judge Burnett gave the jury the fol.
lowing Instructions:
Extracts from Judge Burnetts In.
struetions.
THE principal allegation in the com.
plaint, and which is denied by the de
PENDANTS, is that on the Both day Of
August 1902, defendants maliciously
published in said newspaper Of and
concerning plaintiff. certain article
containing false and defamatory mat
ter, following, to-wit. and then sets
out a local which plaintiff alleges was
published in the paper.
1T is said that this act was done
maliclously. SO far as that is con.
cerned the law presumes that every
person intends the natural and prob.
able consequences of his own act, and,
therefore. that the natural and prob
able consequences of defamatory mat.
ter published by a party. were to in.
lure and defame the persons against
whom II was published and the law
will infer that a defendant or defend.
ants. II they cause or negligently per
! mittod the publication OF false and
defamatory matter. It will be injurious
, in consequences, although the defend
, ants may not have entertained any
( special il-will toward the person in
iured. II is not necessary TO render
an act malicious that a party be aotu.
atcd by a feeling OF ill-will toward the
! individual or that he entertain or
p lpursue any bad purpose. On the con
trary the defendants may be actuated
, by a good purpose. but. II in pursuing
, that. they iniiict a wrong on another
which is not warranted by law, such
, act is malicious
Oregon Law Defined.
a IT is libelous in a person, and a
D. person would be guilty of libel 10 re.
p peat maliciously any libel, although
composed by another For INSTANCE,
II would be libelous in me 70 go
!. around telling that Mr., Robertson
!, stated falsely. that Mr. Martin had
A. been guilty of murder. Il would not
d. screen me TO say Ben Robertson told
Pc me. II repeat anything lbelous or
A. slanderous which Ben Robertson says,
n am equally guilty. and Mr. Martin
10 could sue me and let Mr.. Robertson go
- FREQ n ne chose. Il would not be an
"A excuse or defense against the action
20 show that libel was published or
IN composed 10y the agent Of the party
., The defendants would be- liable
for the acts of their employe done in
% the course Of his employment, and il
would not be an excuse for them 10
,e say they did not have any actual
knowledge Of A. So they would be H.
n able for the act OF their reporter In
IS the course OF his employment though
es the act was not In the actual knowl
,v edge of the defendants themselves
m ANY false and malicious writing
published about another is lbclous OF
itself when It's tendency is 20 render
the person contemplate or ridiculous
y" In public estimation or expose tho
p" person Co public hatred or contempt
10 And where publication charges
'' against or imputes 10 another an in
p" dictablo onense
p The falsity Of dcamitoy words
y" is presumed. because the law will not
=" presume misconduct in person. anC
" II ihelous per Sc. malice is always
4" presumed
The presumption of innocence /,
prima iacie evidence of explicit nal
- Ice and want OF probable cause vii
~ be presumed and 10 imputc To- per
~ son an indlctable oneu,e would b,
:" lihelous OF itself
=" m | 20 out in the town and publish
~ c0nCernins Mr. Martin that he mur
" dored MT Jones that of Itself woui,
" constitute libel % publish t in writ
" ug aud circulate "a whore peopl,
y could read IL aud see it that would b,
'' libel OF itself
p You will have au opportunity Z,
:" read the article chargej as libel bo
- cause lt b. SET forth iu tha com
plant s''
:" a have already stated 90 you tina
the absence 90 The defendants. o.
y either of them. lrom The clty. Or thol
- lack of knowltsiee. would not n ilsel
be any defense 20 the charge but evl
p denCe Of that has been admitted Il
you as part of the circumstances sur
e' rounding the case, and as ehcctlng
n degree oi malice I, would he worth,
of more punishment or greater degre,
- OF damages IL they themselves IA,
~ penned the article and had printed 4,
D Aad haa-Fsne arlaRA themselves eil
le eolatlns Il In PsFso0, \ woala III