The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1917-08-24
OF PRESS
UPHELD BY JUDGE
Demurrer In Criminal Libel Case
! Against Editor Of The Ad-
vertiser Sustained " 4

Circuit Judge Heen yesterday morn
ing sustained the demurrer of Roderiek
o. MathesOn, editor of The Advertiser,
filed in the criminal libel suit brought
by the city attorney. The complainant
was allowed, however, ten days from
yesterday In which to amend its com
plant .'or otherwise move" Judge
Heen had the demurrer under consid.
Grafton for almost two months.
The suit was begun by the city at.
tOrney a Office against Mr.. Matbeson'
following the publication Of an editor.
ial, {" Under What Flag7" relating 70
speech made by the Governor to sew
eral hundred school children in the
grounds Of the Capitol Il was init.
mated by the city attorneys office that
the prosecution was instituted without
the knowledge of the Governor and
that this prosecution was begun of the
voIition entirely Of the city attorneys
office. ALL. .Nfl
What Is the Man Talking About?''
Gin the first place" said Lorrin An.
drews Of the firm Of Andrews & Pitt.
man, counsel for the defendant, yes.
terday, 81 contend that the article was
not libelous. 1t was simply n criticism
of public official and his public utter
gBees, which criticism is justified un-
der the law. s...' VI
4"'In my opinion, - continued Mr.. An.
drews, while discussing Judge Heen' g
decision, "the heading Under What
Flagf' simply asked the question:
/ hoN Aal in .
Judge Heen 5 decision, in full, is as
| follows: - NJ
Judge Hens Decision 81.
| 1.-THE Writing complained of in the
information in the case at bar does not
import defamation on it's face. II APP
pears TO be a criticism of speech con
eerning a matter of public interest
made by a public official, and there Is
nothing in the information which
charges that the criticism inputes or
insinuates dishOnorabe motives on the
part of the defendant.
Every person has Night to com.
ment on matters of public interest and
general concern, provided he does SO
fnirly and with an honest purpose.
Such comments are not Ebelous, how.
ever severe in their terms, unless they
are written Unexpectedly and malici.
ously. Every citizen has full freedom
of speech on such subjects, but he
must not abuse it. The general rule "a
be adhered to in criticising or com.
menting upon matters of public in.
terest Is to eonfne the comments to the
matter itself, and not to descend ia
personal attacks on private character
or imputations of unworthy motives.
Newell On SANDER & Libel, 3d.. ed
p, 6S7. ,.. =. KY ~. ..,...s.t
No Innuendo or Defamation ~
| 'The title of the writing in question
does not seem to be confined I'd lfht
matter under criticism but seems tt
refer to the public official himself
However, there is nothing in the in
formation by way of innuendo or other
wise which shows it to be defamatory
"Thero being no allegation Of ex
trins:c fucts and no innuendo ascrib
ing to the writing any defamatory
meaning, the court is compelled TO holC
that the information is insufficient
ami therefore sustains the demurrer.
40 Wherever the words complained
: of are capable both of defamator,
and an innocent meaning, il win be
J question for the jury to decide which
meaning the hearers or readers woult
on the occasion in question have rea
sOnahly given to the words. An in
nuCndO is essential to show the laten
inJdriOus meaning %. B., ,'...
"Newell on Slander & Libel, Sd ed
p. 35I." .s ~ .G -