Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-01-30

lieve that our court would exclude evil
dence of an apology in an action Of
libel. If so there may be many cases
where the apology, especially in cases
of honest mistakes, may be so effective
that the plaintiff in the end suffers
no damage and still he is entitled tc
recover as heavy damages as If nc
apology had been made. This is not
the exact justice melted out to other
tlitigants. Compensation, full measure
for the wrong actually done, is the end
and object of an action Of law. Fol
levery wrong there is remedy. The
lremedy is enforced to make good the
Injury DONE. legal fiction that gives
the plaintiff compensation, with no in
jury to be paid for, has no place in
the enlightened Jurisprudence of mod
fern times. Ordinarily in all other
factions it is the duty of the plaintiff
to take all steps reasonably necessary
to reduce the damages to be paid by
his neighbor. The plaintiff himself has
an active duty to perform. He must
put up the bars" lest the defendant
be made to suffer unduly. In the law
of libel reason is forgotten-the King
so ordered; the plaintiff may refuse an
apology and by his own act aggravate
his injury. The defendant may apol-
logiZe so completely that in the end no
damage is sustained, but the court eX-
cludes the proof because of the rigor
of the ancient rule that to hold other
wise would tend to breaches CT the
peace. When by statute or by judge
made law the law of libel is brought
to the philosophical basis that the
plaintiff is seeking compensation for
the wrong done to him, not to the pub
lie. the doors will swing open to re-
ceive all evidence tending to prove the
damages actually sustained. 1t is All
lunrighteous doctrine that a wrong
doer. especially an innocent wrong
doer. shall have no opportunity to re-
pair his wrong. The press of Maine
is not so reckless in it's management
that it should be denied the right of
repentance held out to the dying thief
upon the cross. Presumed by the law
tG publish only falsehoods, you are met
with an irrebuttable presumption
found in no other branch of the law
| that no act of yours can make good
the injury done. Held to be so ON
ripOtent that you are presumably con-
victed of falsehood without proof, lou
are held on the other hand to have So
little influence that your apology is un.
worthy the consideration of the court
Lord Campbelrs act of 1S43 annulled
| the rule in England. Under it proof of
an apology is received in mitigation of
damages if the publication of the libel
was without actual malice and with
out gross negligence. In Alabama the
i ;r 10 h.
made by mistake or inadvertence. In
Connecticut an apology excludes punt
| tive damages. Massachusetts has a
| comprehensive statute combining the
| judgment to actual damages if apology
J is made or offered to be made and re-
| jected. Michigan has similar statute
| but it must appear that the libel was
| published in good faith and was due to
mistake or misrepresentation. of the
facts. Similar statutes exist in Mime
sofa, Virginia, West Virginia, Galifor-
mia and Colorado.
Section one of the bill presented to
| the last Legislature remedied this in
| justice. TO make the apology adnis-
sible proof was necessary that the libel
was published in good faith and with
out actual malice. 1t might be we'll to
add the requirement, land without
negligence" The expression "gross
| negligence" in the English statute
opens the door too wide. If newspa-
per can prove that it published an item
in good faith, believing it to be true,
without actual malice, that it exercised
due care in trying to learn the truth,
and satisfies the jury that on learning
the falsity it made an honest apology,
certainly such facts should be re-
ceived in evidence as tending to miti-
gate the damages. 1t would all be
matter for the jury. If the apology in
fact did not reduce the damage done,
the verdict would not be reduced. An
unfair or poorly published apology
would do the defendant no good and
the plaintiff no harm. The rule is fair
to the public for the inquiries address,
ed by the court to the jury would be
What do you think of this apology?
How much, if at all, did it repair the
injury" Lawyers need have no fear
that their clients will suffer. Such a
statute opens the door to the entire
truth. Under it the plaintiff will re-
cover full compensation Today he re-
covers more. No litigant in any cause
should fear to meet "the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth"
At common law plaintiff could re-
cover and collect judgment against all
the newspapers publishing the same
libel against him simultaneously That
his injury by all may have been made
good by the collection of a Judgment
against one was an excluded fact in the
trial of subsequent suits against
others. Such is the present rule in
Maine. One suit ordinarily yields full
compensate for such simultaneously
libels. There have been instances of
items sent out in good faith by The
Associated Press, without negligence,
and published the next morning by all
the papers. BY error the items We're
untrue and libellous. Apologies were
of no avail. The right of action has
been syndicated. Large sums have
been extorted and compensation made
hundred fold, when an apology would
have righted all the wrong, or if no
apology were sufficient, when one pay
ment was ample to make full amends.
The common law, rejecting the prin-
ciple that the action of libel was in
tended for compensation to the indi-