The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-02-09

Y, FllJI6lRC AE6Y y, I9l
-.---.-....
plaintiffs business. personal feelings
and his standing iii the community In
which he lives; md, IL under the other
Instructions herein, he IL entitled to
recover. they should award him such
sum by way Sf aalnagea as WI, VII fairly
1. For any loss or injury to his
BUSINESS, and
Q. For the insult to him, Including
any pain and modification and mental
suffering inflicted upon hlln, and
3. For any injury to his reputation
as man and citizen.
HOW lie May Recover.
And IL the jury believe from ali the
evidence In the case that the acts COM
planned of were Influenced Nv actual
malice or n design 10 in1ure or oppress,
tho plaintiff, he may recover in this
action, In addition to such damages as
those mentioned above, punitive or eN-t
s Emp damages; that IS to say. that
lne jury Will not be limited in tho
amount or It's verdict for the plalntin
20 compensation TO him for the actuai
aainase sustained. as above Indicated.
lhey may give him such further dam
uses MS they may think right i'll view
OF all the circumstances OF the case
US punishment to the defendants ana
rs y salutary example to others to de-
Yer them from offending In like man
ner.
In determining whether defendants.
III publishing and circulating tn.
charges complained OF, were influenced
by actual mulice or II design to inJure
or oppress the plaintiff. the jury should
consider the relation OF the parties to
before and after the publications in
question, and all the circumstances
surrounding them.
The piantiff. however cannot recov-
~. ,I,L. nff . n
bringing OF this suit or for any words
published either before or after the
bringing of the suit except for the
words declared on in this action, but
IL the words published after the bring
ing of this suit show by fair INFER
cnce that the defendants were persist
Ing in the charges contained in the
declaration, or any OF them. then the
jury may consider such subsequently
published words in aggravation of the
damages.
Whit 1t Might Show.
| And If the jury believe from the evi-
! dence that the defendants were in the
habit of publishing other false and
concerning other members of the COM
/, munity. such publications may be con
I, sidered as showing reckless indif-
+, ference to the rights and regulations
! of others. and as furnishing basis
| for the inference that the publications
| in the declaration mentioned were ma
| licious in fact, but before such other
| publications can be considered the
J jury must be satisfied from the ev;-
/ dence that said other charges were
/ false ana defamatory.
The court further instructs the jury
that If they believe from the evidence
That the words complained of in the
third count OF the declaration Were
!, published by the defendants of and
concerning the plaintiff, and that such
words from their usual construction
ana common acceptation are construed
as insults and tend to violence ana
| breach of the peace, they are action
able; that is to say. the plaintiff has
(, the right to sue the defendants there
Tor and to recover IN this action such
manages as the jury may think proper
7 under all the circumstances OF the
case, the amount OF such damages 10
pc determined upon the principles laid
down in the other instructions herein.
put as to this article as to buying
votes IN Manchester. the jury is in
s.rucled mat the Language used means
IN lts fair Interpretation, according TO
me usual construction and acceptation
OF the language, that If Saunders was
elected 1t would be on account Of the
votes OF those whose taxes were paid
by the liquor people. and 1, is in tho
opinion Of the court privileged, and 10
entitle the plaintiff TO recover on this
count he must prove that the defend
ants were moved to publish the said
statements by actual malice in fact. 1. O.,
from an indirect motive. such as anger
| or III VIII, or with a knowledge that
they We're untrue or without caring
whether they were true or false.
The court further instructs the Jury
| mat one may not come forward after
!! he is sued for damages for libel and
say that what he has published was
not maliclously done. or that in max
Ing the charge he had no Ill Will
against the plaintiff, or that he did
the offences alleged by the libelous
| words But such evidence may be con-
sidered by the Jury on the question OF
actual malice, Its weight and sufti-
cheney being for them.
| Whether the publications complained
| Of We're In fact malicious or were pub
lished with design to injure and OPP
press the plaintff must be determined
from the. acts of the defendants ap.
pearing in the evidence and all the
circumstances Of the case.
Can't Consider others.
The court further instructs the jury
i that the publications appearing n The
cross -examination of the plaintiff. can
not be considered by the jury as fur
nishing any justification to the defen-
dants for publishing the articles COM
planned of In the declaration Nor can
| they be considered by the Jury in de-
termining either
1 4. Whether the defendants had rea.
sonable cause to believe that the
charges complained of in the declara.
tlcn were true or
2. In mitigation OF damages. excep,
that they may be considered by the
Jury on the question Of punitive oil
exemplary damages as tending to re,
but, actual malice. their weight ant
sutficiency being for the jury; and thi!
!, is also true as to the evidence as t
4 the Richmond Traction Company ant
the Bell Telephone franchise. and thu
both the publications, and these lat
ter matters may be considered by tn
Jury in so far rs they bear upon TIL