The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-09-08

not mean that you find the plaintiff, on June %, 1916, was an anarchist.
 II only means that in view of the
 facts found by you, you further find
 that a reasonable man could, and the
 editors of the Tribune did, as a mat
 ter of fact actually honestly enter
 tain the views expressed by the edi- ! torial
 Referring to the matter of the ' hllngeEsmith interview if won find i from the evidence that FIlinFen- ! smith, who was an officer and dfrec- 1 tor of the Ford Motor Companv in . response to inquiries made of hin, b,, .. | the witness Williams, informed VII
 Rams that the company's empIovao, i who were members of or rocr,,f+s ! n the National Guard would roso 1 their places upon compJv;n, y,i,b tha o'der mobilizing the Guard. that no ! provision would be made for an,, o,, 'ependent upon them, no provisior, \ MDIIu De made for them or tbat, ! -'ll---IoS' and that when they returned
 i''' MOuld De upon the same footing dS o'hef applicants. and that +bis . would be the rule for Ford er7D1o,-o., 1 'Ntf}Wheroi and if you find from tba ! evidence that the Tribune Copna,,z. l Jhereupon in good faith. and in TO.
 nance upon these statements. if tbav' | were properly handed on to the Tri-
 pune Company by Williams. pub
 nsheo the editorial of June 23, 1916. ! then you are instructed that inc Trib. i une Company had a right to rely upon these statements of Klinre,- smith as showing what the Ford Mo
 j"r Company in fact intended to do
 "llh reference to these matters.
 But If, as I said before. yoI frd mat hHnEonsmith did not so inform 1 tIlla ms but that the publication oF "ha1 he is claimed to have said was made out of whole cloth or cbanraa
 in substance by the Tribune Connanv Tor their own private purposes. vou
 would be justified in attributinr to
 them actual malice 10 them.
 " neither or not KIinEensnith
 stated 10 Williams the actual inten-
 ton. on June 2l, 1916, of the Ford Motor Company. with reference +o
 The treatment of its employees and 1 their dependents, is not of any consa- Guenco in this case and could not af-
 feet the right of the Tribune Com
 pany 10 rely upon his statements with reference 10 these matters. The
 sole question in reference to the
 statements made by klinEensu7ith . Williams is as 10 what statemen. : which Williams testified he did then
 these statements may be taken as
 proven for all purposes of this case
 In considering this question as 10
 what klingensmith said, you have the
 right to consider the testimony of
 others who may have had conver-
 saion with Klingensmith in regard to the matter.
 IslHy TDTaSuY11ps f-,av.c,,
 The law presumes that the alleged
 libelOus charges in the Editorial are
 false, and the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show the contrary. No burden of proof therefore is upon
 tho plaintiff to prove the falsity of
 any Ibelous charge against him. If you find for the plaintiff he is | entitled to general damages for intur,- | to both his reputation and to his feel i ings- These damages are allowable l without proof of special injury arts- ing from any libelous charges as ! bearing on the amount of danage l and injury dono the plaintiffs feel ! lngs and reputation; the recklessnes5 | and lack of care if any, of the De- | fendant Tribune Company is proper to l be considered by you.
 The defendant Tribune Company's | alleged good faith in publishing the | alleged libelous charges, does not af- l feet or lessen plaintiffs right to com | pensauon for all injury done to his i feelings and reputation; the only de-
 fense of the defendant in that respect ! being to prove the truth of the claim ! ed libelous charges, or that they con | stituted fair comment. under the l charge I have given you.
 | As bearing upon the injuries done q sro1a acra +a he Ias | reputation, by such libelous editorial 1 his reputation is presumed good | under the law, there being no testi-
 mony to the contrary. You are there 1 fore to consider his reputation good. | If you find for the plaintiff, in fix | ing the amount of damages to plain | tiffs feelings and reputation, you may, 1 and should consider the respective 1 positions and standing of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Tribune Com i pany, in this community and through l out the country where such libelous l editorial was circulated and the number of copies of such editorial published and circulated by the de- fendant.
 I don't recaIl---I omitted to state to you the circulation on the Tribune on i that day, but it seems to me it was something like 40S,000.
 Consider Circulation. THE COURT: That will give you some idea as to the number of people to whom that editorial probably
 went, and you may take that into ac- count in determining what damages the plaintiff should recover, if you conclude that he is to recover in this | case.
 If you find from the evidence that after the editorial of June 23, 1916,
 was published, the Ford Motor Com pany for the first time decided that it would reinstate it's employees who were | in the service of the National Guard and would in some manner provide for their families, such decision made after the editorial was publish
 ed would not make the Tribune Com pany liable for the publication. The question whether Henry Ford
 was properly called an anarchist does not depend upon what he himself thought of the character of his views and his efforts to make those views l effective; nor does it depend upon hisS abstract legal right to entertain those views; nor is the question affected by anything relating to the purity or benevolence of his private life, or his efforts to better the condition of his