The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-02-23

to expose all wrongdoings, no<matter py whom( committed.
 nswsnanar Nos ohiy is ,t,,Ds it permissible for
 wrongdoing." said Justice Guy, but
 1t Is its duty to do so."
 The opinion in full Is as follows: | The jury has found, as matter of | fact. either that the statement made l privileged, or that 1t was true in sub | stance and in fact; and. in my opinion.
 there is abundant proof in the case to
 warrant warrant such finding. The evidence
 that adulterated goods, injurious to | life and health. the sale of which would be fraud upon practicing phy- sIclans and the public, were found in
 large quantities in the cellar of the premises occupied by the plaintiff. not | merely in the room which he Iaims he had rented to Wooten, but else- where on the premises; also mum Der of duplicate bills on billheads bearing the plaintiffs name. showing the sale by plaintiff of quantities or fphenacetine and other drugs as to which 1t is claimed there was fraudu- lent adulteration, at prices far below the established rates in the drug trade in this country.
 The plaintiff also admitted on the
 stand that he was at that time en-
 gagged in the sale of goods sometimes
 used for immoral purposes. and that
 he was subsequently, in criminal pro-
 ceedings instituted as the result of
 the seizure in question. convicted or
 the crime of selling such goods in
 violation of law for immoral purposes
 It Is apparent on all the evidence that the contention that Wooten alone
 was guilty. and that the plaintiff was
 not in any way connected with the sale of these adulterated. spurious and which the jury properly gave no credence. But, even had the jury found that the defendant ("The Times'') was guilty technically of libel. court. had they found verdict for more than nominal damages to i'm mediately set the verdict aside as against the weight of evidence.
 The law jealously guards the good repute of all persons in their private character and in their business or-pro fession. unless by their general private conduct or by the character of the business or profession in which they are engaged they have themselves for feited such good repute. But the law is not engaged In the rehabilitation of regulations. Or in throwing the mantle around those who deliberately engage in practices in violation of law and follow pursuits which are subversive of decency and good morals.
 The defendant was engaged in the publication of a newspaper not merely for the dissemination of news, but with the additional purpose of uphold Ing high standard of public decency and morals in the community. and 1t was not merely its right, but it's duty. In connection with public and of ficial proceeding of the kind in ques- tion to publish truthfully so much of the facts as with decency 1t could pub fish, so that even If the machinery of the criminal law proved inadequate to | reach indicators of this class. who traffic for gain In human life and health and seek to promote immoral | practices. they might be held up to public scorn and contempt.
 While newspapers should be held to | strict and severe accountability for un- iustifiable and untruthful assaults | upon private character. or upon bust | ness standing and credit they deserve not punishment and rebuke but public | approval and commenJation where. as p this instance, they truthfully, and | in strict conformity to the facts. call | public attention to those who are en- gagged in nefarious practices. injurious to the public welfare.
 For these reasons the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial Is denied.