The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-28
LONDON LIBEL
LAW SUSTAINED
New Trial Ordered in
Osborn v. Leach.
RANGE COMPANY CASE
Iudqe Clark Writes Opinion in Libel
Case. Law Does Not Apply to Ac-
tuaI Damages. Justice Doug
las Claims 1t is Uncon-
stitutiOnaI.

cd down a number of opinions, among
them being Osborn VS.. Leach, from
Guilford, the libel suit, for which
new trial is ordered, and Range Com
pany VS.. Camper, from Pamlico,
which is reversed.
In the trial of Osborn VS.. Leach in
the court below, at Greensboro, the
Judge took the case from the jury and
dismissed the action. On appeal the
Supreme court holds that this was er-
ror, for as the matter was libellouS OH
it's face the truth of the charge o,
the absence of malice were matters OF
fact which must be found by tho jury
and not by the judge. The cour>
further hold Chief Justice Clark writ
ing the opinion, that the London libel
law is constitutional but that it only
provides for a relief from punitive
or exemplary damages upon publica
ton of the retraction; that actual
damages which the act provides ca.
still be recovered Notwithstanding the
retraction, embraces all damages ex
cept punitive, hence that damages to
the reputation of any, can be recoV-
cred as well as special damages; that
this being so, if the five days notice
is not given, it does not destroy the
the right of action. so far as it in
cludes punitive damages, which alone
are released by a retraction.
Judge Montgomery concurred In
these views. Judge Douglass con
Cured in the result, but dissents on
the ground that the London libel Law
is unconstitutional, because it discrim-
mates in favor of newspapers ana
against individuals. Judge Walker
dssents on the ground that the five
DAYS notice should have been given.
Judge Connor, being stockholder In
the News and Observer, did not SIT
In the other case a certain range
company had shipped into the State
by carload lots, and then sold them
after being shipped here. The sheriff
of Pamlico claimed the license tax
imposed upon peddlerS of ranges In
the Revenue Act
The opinion by Judge Walker holds
that as the plaintiff had the right TO
import it's ranges into the State. II
had also the right, under the COM
merce clause of the Constitution OF
the United States, to sell them after
they had reached their destination
and were at rest in the State, provid-
ed the sale is made in the original
packages Without the right to sell
in the unbroken packages, the right
to sell would be valueleSsS and any
prohibition of the right to sell or any
restriction upon the right would to
that extent be an interference with
Interstate commerce, the regulation OF
which is committed exclusively to
Congress. The opinion cites and COM
ments upon numerous cases decided
by the Supreme Court of the United
States, and among others, Brown VS.
MARYLAND Rollins VS.. Taxing District
Brennan VS.. Titusville, Austen vs.
Tennessee and Leisy VS.. Hardin and
holds that those cases and many 9TH
ers have established the principle that
interstate commerce does not stop at
the external boundary of a State, but
enters the interior and operates there
so as to protect the right of the i'm
porter to introduce his goods into the
State and to sell them in the original
packages of commerce and even after
the packages are broken and the
goods become mingled with the gen.
eral mass of property in the State. to
shield him against unfriendly and dis
eliminating legislation. The peddler
cases have no application, as the Ii
cense tax i'm this case was imposed
for the purpose of raising revenue and
not merely in the exercise of the po-
lice power of the State. The legisla-
-
%peddler'' so as to create a class for
the purpose of taxation, but it could
not by means of such a definition
vest itself with the power so to tax as
to regulate interstate commerce. 1t
cannot do indirectly what it is for
hidden to do directly
The opinion reverses the judgment
below and upon the case agreed the
court directs judgment to be enter
ed for the plaintiff
The full list of opinions handed
down is as follows:
Eekhout V. Cole, from Cherokee;
new trial
Westfeldt V. Adams, from Haywood;
new trial.
HarrilI V. Railroad, from Rutner-
ford; affirmed.
Hood V. Telegraph Co, from Neck
lenburg; new trlal.
Osborn V. Leach, from Guilford;
new trial.
Currie V. Railroad, from Moore; no
error.
new trial.
Range Co. V. Camper, from Pam
leo; reversed.
Becton " Dunn, from Lemon; per
curtain, affirmed.
johnson V. Duval, from Swain; re-