Norwich bulletin., 1914-07-01


 erry to give, damages beyond mere compensation for the actual loss or in- jury, such damages to be exemplary or vindictive in proportion to the de- gree of malice or mantonness evidenced by the defendant, and to increase the amount also by taking into consider ation the plaintiffs expenses in nti- gation.
 Damages.
 Exemplary or punitive damages are such as are properly awarded if it ap- pears to the jury that the defendant acted with such wantonness or so ma hciously that he should be made an example of in the community for the wrong doing complained of, such dam ages to be suStantial enough to serve as a punishment to the defendant for such wrong doing.
 Where the words uttered or the words published are in themselves h- belous or scandalous, the mental suf- fering occasioned by the publication of the ,defamatory words may be taken into consideration by the jury for the purpose of estimating general and compensatory damages. Moreover it has been held and it Is held that be- cause libel or islander involves an injury to the feelings of the plaintiff, as well as to his reputation, his injury may be greater if the defamatory words are uttered with express malice AAdl II lneTe lS Only In6 IIldl1Ce WnlCn the law implies from intentionally do- ing, without Justification that which in its natural tendency is injurious.
 If the jury find that the defendant has in bad faith pleaded a justifica- ,tion of the words uttered or published by him. it is proper for the jury to give. and at its discretion it may give. increased damages therefor. consid- ering the defendants plea and answer as the means taken by him to perpet- uate the islander and libel, and his putting the same into the record may be regarded as indicating the degree of malice which prompted his defam- atory words
 Financial Condition of Defendant.
 It is proper for the jury to consider and the jury should consider the finan- cial condition of this defendant in es- timating the damages. What would be heavy punishment for a poor person in case of this nature might be tri- vial punishment for person of wealth. The financial condition of the defend ant has been testified to and the evil dence has been produced tending to show that the defendant is a person of large property and if the jury find that the defendant Is a person of sub- stantial means and resources and the vetrdict Is for the plaintiff. damages may be awarded greater than the jury might lCSA JdSliilc0 HI II lllC defendant were the possessor of less wealth or of slender resources.
 If the defendant Is found to be person of wealth, and exemplary or punitive damages are awarded. such damages may be made sufficiently weighty to- have the effect upon the defendant which the jury intends that damages shall have upon him.
 To summarize: Wealth is an import ant element of social position, stand ing and influence and the words of g. man of wealth carry more weight than those of a person in less affiuent cir cumstances, and therefor a defama- ton by him will probably cause great CT injury, while on the question of punitive damages it is obviously proper than the wealth of the defend ant should be considered because an award that would practically bank rupt poor man would be but light punishment as against a man of con- siderable wealth.
 Character Considered.
 The defendant had the right to show. on the trial, if he could do so by proper evidence, that the plaintiff was not a person of good character, for the purpose of decreasing the damages as the law regards the injury from libel or islander, or both, to a person without a good character as DSlI1S less Ildn lH0 same SldHQoT UT libel would be to a person of good character. But it is presumed that the plaintiff is a person of good char acter until his character is shown to be otherwise by evidence given for that purpose.
 The statements made by the de- fendant on the witness stand that Mrs. Willard A. Church confessed that she had been criminally intimate with the plaintiff were admitted in evidence only that the same might be consid- cred as tending to contradict the tes- timony of Mrs. Church relating to the time she first met Craney and to the number of interviews she had with him and the purpose of such inter views; and the jury may weigh those statements for what they are worth in that direction. But the jury must not consider those statements so made by the defendant. Donovan, as proving or tending in any way to prove that the plaintiff. Craney, and Mrs. Church were criminally or improperly intimate or that Craney was guilty of the of- lenses described in the various counts of the complaint.
 Future Effect.
 The damages may include and be made to compensate the plaintiff for the future consequences of the evil words, viz: the injury to the plaintin which may arise rom those WoruS hereafter If it is found by the jury that injury may reasonably be ex- pected to affect the plaintiff in future from the islander or libel. that consid- eration may be taken into account in fixing damages, as another suit cannot be maintained by the plaintiff in fu- ture upon these words no matter how serious his future injury may be from the islander and libel described in this action.
 Defendants Request.
 The following was the request to charge made by the attorneys for the defendant:
 1 The truth of any defamatory words in an action of libel or islander, if pleaded. and proved, is a complete defense to any cause or action brought for speaking or printing the same and if the jury are satisfied that the words are true in substance and in fact they must find for the dsfend- ant though they feel sure that he spoke the words spitefully and ma lfciously.
 If the defendant believed the words written or spoken were true and had reasonable grounds for be lieving the same were true he is not liable for speaking or printing the same even though the words were spoken or written spitefully and ma nciously.
 If the jury find that the words al- legged to have been spoken or writ ten by the defendant concerning the plaintiff were true then their verdict must be for the defendant. If the jury ind that the allaged