Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-01-29
as it has been related In the course
Of the testimony. and concluded by as
serting that no defense has been Of

CeIelI18 that AZ OoIeuSe mas Oeen OF.
fered.
Several Of the witnesses we're char
acterized as v%acillating individuals
who dared not speak the truth, but
thought they could compromise while
on the witness stand, and Mr.. Bangs
took occasion to denounce the prac-
tice Of obtaining advance affidavits
from witnesses who did not UNDER
stand that they had the privilege Of
simplifying and correcting their state
ment when placed on a witness stand
in open court.
Judge Instructs Jury.
In charging the jury Judge Cooley
outlined the three complaints brought
a resume Of the defense offered on
each separate cause of action. -
The instructions as to the law Of
the case at bar were to the effect that
1.-The enjoyment of private reputation.
~unassailed, is as much a constitutional
right as the possession Of life, liberty
or property" and hat defamation
is effected by libel or by SANDER"
each defined by the court in the fol-
lowing words:
Libel is a false and unprivileged
lures, ef1gy, or other fixed represen-
tation to the y which expose any
person to hatred, contempt, ridicule,
or obloquy, or which causes him to be
Stunned or avoided. or which has a
tendency to injure him in his reputa-
ton.
Islander is a false and unprivileged
among other things, charges any per-
son with crime. or tends directly to
injure him in respect to his office,
trade. profession, or business. either
by imputing to him general disquali-
fications in those respects which the
Office or other occupation peculiarly
requires. or by imputing something
with reference to his office, profession.
trade, or business. that has a natural
tendency to lessen it's profit"
Nature of Damages.
The court then defined the nature
of the W o distinct classes of compen-
satory damages recognized by law,
and also laid down the theory that in
actions for libel or SANDER, two
classes of malice are recognized, that
is, legal or implied malice. and actual
malice, or malice in fact: he also held
that for h recovery of exemplary
damages in addition to the compen-
satory damages, it devolves upon the
tual malice, that is. personal hatred
or i'll will o the part of the defendant
toward the plaintiff.
The jury was instructed to ascer-
tain whether or not actual damages
should be granted to the plaintiff; it
was added in the charge that should
the jury find the defendant actuated
by active Inc vindictive malice, punt
tive damages may be given in addition
to h compensatory damages.
The presumptions raised by the law
in regard to SANDER and libel were
outlined as follows: That the words
spoken were false: that they were
spoken maliciously. and, that dam
ages resulted to the plaintiff there
sumptions upon each Of the three
separate causes of action was dis
cussed in the charge.
Confined by Complaint.
The court called attention to the
fact that evidence has been admitted
Of numerous alleged acts and utter
ances attributed to the defendant not
mentioned in the complaint; the in
PRODUCTION of testimony of this ma
ture has been permitted for the pur-
pose of showing. the jury intent or
actual malice if that element was
present at all.
This evidence was to be disregarded
by the jury according to Judge
Cooley, who said:
"You are not permitted to allow
any damage on account of such al
legged acts if you find they occurred,
nor on account Of such alleged utter
ances, if you find they were made;
damages, if any are found by you,
must be based upon the alleged Sian.
derous remarks mentioned in the
complaint, so far as proven, if at
ALL"
This instruction evidently made it
impossible for the almost celebrated
stove poker incident to be taken into
consideration, and effectively disposed
Of other issues, also raised during the
introduction of evidence, allowed for
the sole purpose of further illuminat-
ing the facts alleged in the COM
plant.