Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-09-30

IOuCfGN uROfl tAc d1lCGdtlOho VI tiS lii-
dictment, the definition Of malice, the
! meaning of libel, the admitted main
| facts as to publication of the Carroll
article and the we'll known rules as
to defense by proving the truth Of the
| charges.
| In connection with the investigation
! the governor, as such, made OF charges
| brought to his attention regarding
John Cownie, the jury was instructed
| "that the said B. F. Carroll, as gov
ernor, had legal right to investi-
gate such charges and act thereon, and
that malice can not be inferred nor
predfcated upon any act of the said b.
F. Carroll as governor of the state Of
Iowa shown on this trial in investigat-
| ing such charges or in acting thereon" f"
| In regard to the Carroll attack being
| privileged because OF it's being a reply
to the Cownie article the jury was in
structed that, as matter OF law, such
publication by the said defendant OF
said article, on the occasion and in the
manner which it was published. was a
privileged occasion, and before you
| would be warranted in finding the de-
| fendant guilty you must find beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant
| in the publication of said article was
actuated by malice, with design to
! causelessly or wantonly injure the said
John Cownie."
As TO Self Defense.
| AS TO the principle Of self-defense
the court said:
! "In this connection you are instructed
that everyone has right to defend his
character against false aspersions, and
| when attacked in newspaper may re-
| but the charges and retort upon his as
sailant when such retort Is a necessary
| part of his defense or fairly arises out
| of charges made against him, and in
so doing, and while so doing. can not
be held guilty of libel. If, however.
| in making such reply or retort the de-
| fendant exceed such right Of self
defense, and himself becomes the ag-
gressor, and while so acting as such
aggressor maliciously libeled the said
John Cownie then, for such libel so
committed, the defendant would not be
exempt by reason Of his legal right OF
| self defense"
The jury was instructed that if in the
| Carroll Cownie. conversation Cownie
challenged the defendant to publish
what was said in the conversation,
| ETC., and this was 80 acted upon by
the defendant" then unless you shall
further find that that in the published
article the governor made charges or
disclosures not discussed in said con-
yersation there can not be convlc-
| tion.''
! So, also, if Cownie disclosed and
made known to the public the charges
discussed by the defendant then the
reference to or discussion OF SAID
charges by the defendant without max
| ing other or additional charges against
said John Cownie than those so dis
| closed and discussed by the Defendant
would. in law be deemed defense ana
not a libel"
As to State Contracts.
| In regard to the matter of the al
legged irregularity in the manner OF
making awards by the board Of control,
that Mr. Cownie made illegal awards,
setting up all the averments in detail,
and the governor received from the
board a communication setting forth
| these facts, then
eff YOU find from the evidence that
defendant B. F. Carroll was In receipt
! Of such communication from the 'poaro
of control he would not under the CIR
cumstances disclosed by the record oe
guilty of criminal libel in disclosing
| the same, unless he acted with nance
as. elsewhere instructed IN these IN
structions, and if you find from the
evidence that such goods and supplies
! were in fact so purchased you heeo
inquire no further"
In this connection the court set out
IN full the law as to the manner Of
making awards Of contracts, and IF
the foregoing provisions Of the statutes
we're not complied with in the purchase
Of prison goods or supplies. then the
said B. T.. Carroll can not be held
euflty of libel in making the charges
he did"
Privileged Communications.
In more general terms as to the
privileged and responsive character OF
tho matter complained Of as libelous
the court said:
If YOU find from the evidence that
the defendant B. F. Carroll. did nave
in his possession the letter ana sworn
statements to which he referred IN the
article exhibit 2, published in the Des
Moines Capital on or about May ~
1910. and fail to find that his reference
thereto was a retort or response 10 an
attack upon his character by the sald
! John Cownie, or in response TO chai-
lenge from the said John Cownle TO
publish the same, and for such reason
justified under the law as laid down IN
these instructions. then. before you can
find the defendant guilty of lloei, oy
reason Of what he said concerning salo
letter and sworn statements. you must
find from the evidence. beyond a reas-
enable doubt, that the words USED py
the defendant in relation thereto were
such as to provoke the said John COW
ME to wrath, expose him to puollc
hatred and contempt. and deprive MIN
Of the benefits Of public confidence ana
social intercourse, and that such words
were used by the defendant with mall
ice as defined in these Instructions.
IF. however you find from the evidence
that the reference of the defendant, In
said article, to such letter and afhdaVlts
was a retort or response to an attack
upon his character by the said John
Cownie, or In response to a challenge
from the said John Cownie to publish
their conversation when he was re-
auested to resign, concerning whlch
YOU are more fully instructed else
where, then, in that event. there can oe
no conviction based on what the de-
feSdant said in said article concerning