The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-06-01
Col. Theodore Roosevelt
Wins His Suit for Libel;
Given 6 Cents Damages
CONTINUED From Page onc)


balconies and the seats behind the law
yers' inclosure were always filed.
The first witness was Colonel Roose-
welt and the last one for the plaintiff
was Admiral George Dewey whose tes-
timony was introduced by deposition.
Between them We're James II. Garfield,
Robert Bacon, former Secretary OF
State and ambassador to France; Gift
ford Pinchot, Truman II. Newberry, for
mer Secretary of War; Maj. Gen. Leon
ard Wood, chief of staff DR.. Lyman
Abbott, w. Emlen Roosevelt, George q.
Cortelyou, DR.. Albert Shaw, William
Loeb Jr., Jacob A. Riis and many news
paper men, all of whom testified orally
or by deposition that Colonel Roosevelt
did not "get drunk" as charged.
While Colonel Roosevelt, smiling de-
lightedly after the verdict was chat
ting with various persons, Mr.. Newett
was speaking with friends in the room,
while everybody else was watching to
see IL the two principals to the suit
would get together.
Newett First to Leave
Mr.. Newett was the first to leave the
court room, but although frequently
halted by persons who wished to ex-
press their admiration of the manner
in which he had acknowledged him
self in the wrong, he was on his way
to his home in 1shpeming before the
colonel left the building. The colonel
had to hurry to catch his train, which
left at $50 o'clock and on it, besides
the colonel, were James r, Garfield,
w. Emlen Roosevelt, William Loeb, Jr.,
and others.
The libel of which Colonel Roosevelt
complained was published october IL,
1912, in Mr.. Newetts weekly paper at
1shpemlng, the Iron Ore. 1t took the
colonel to task for preaching" to 9TH
ers when "he himself gets drunk and
that not infrequently, as all his init
mates know"
Flannigan's Charge
Judge Flanngan's charge to the jury
in substance follows:
Gentlemen of the jury. The position
which the plaintin has now taken en-
ables the eonrt to dispose of this case
tnalls this time.
"'ris elton, gAhfch tx FOR libel fol-
low alpn tie publication by the de-
feneaN \ the statement that the PLAIN
tiff yequentlv drank
"5ta 3 malicious publication ex-
pre- ef "a printing or writing or by
sigfs ~pa pictures tending to blacken
the euory of one dead or the reputa-
tioI e who is alive and expose
him ~ p4nlic hatred, contempt and rid
icul
- aetions for defamation malice
is an e 1tial element. But in such
actlu - word malice is understood
as ~ nH two Specifications One, its
ordiusf roaming of i'll will against 1
person, 9ita the other, its legal sig-
nincatiuH WHICH is q wrongful act
done inlS4f enally withsut just cause or
excuse.
These distinctions have oeen denom-
mated malice in fact and malice in law
Malice in fact, or actual malice, i'm
plies a desire to injure. Malice in law
is not necessarily inconsistent with an
honest purpose but If false and de-
famatory statements are made concern
ing another without sufficient cause or
excuse they are legally malicious and
whenever the natural tendency of the
publication Is to impair the plaintiffs
reputation and the publication is not
privileged, malice is implied from the
defamatory nature OF the publication
and its falsity.
Natural Result
"The natural result of the publication
of the charge we are considering was |
to bring ridicule, contempt and disgrace |
upon the plaintiff and. If untrue, 1t |
was plainly libelous aud malice is con-
clusively presumed from its publica- |
tion unless we may say 1t was priv
ileged.
The plaintiff was formerly President |
of the United States. AT the time of |
ehe Pupiicd'ioh ne WAS candidate Tor |
the office of President of the United |
States and the defendant. by his plea, |
claimed that the plaintiff being such
candidate and he the defendant, being |
the publisher of newspaper, he was |
privileged to comment upon the official |
acts, character and conduct of the |
plaintiff. that the publication was |
made In good faith and with an honest |
Purpose to enlighten the public opinion |
of the character and fitness of the |