The star-progress. (Opelousas, La.) 1917-1921, 1919-11-22
Judge Defines Limitations in
Famous Ford Tribune Lii
bel Suit
HOW THE DAMAGES
SHOULD BE FIGURED
Long-Drawn-Out Case Attract
ed National Attention and
Henry Ford "Won"


within the law, in an interesting way
The fact that this famous trial passed
into history some time ago makes this
iurist's Interpretation of the law no
less interesting to members of the
fraternity. He said, IN
part: "The publication or circulation |
of any article which is libelous per Sc,
presumes malice. don't mean by that |
personal, individual malice, but an |
evil or wrong motive, intention or
state of mind; not necessarily per-
sonal malice against the person about
whom the article is written.
"The burden of proof is upon the
defense, and not upon the plaintiff.
They must either establish the truth
of the charge they have made, or
show that it was fair comment with
in the meaning Of that term.
"As to the me&ning Of the term an
archist,' sased in this editorial, that
is a ma1Igr for you to consider, and
is onS/5f the questions you must de-
ter4nine.
"Ordinarily speaking, the term an
archist' would be expected to convey
to the mind of the ordinary reader
that meaning which naturally comes
to the minds of people when they
hear the term spoken of by itself.
Perhaps the most commonly accepted
meaning Of the term is-murderous,
dangerous persons; possibly bomb
thrower.
ut is your province, gentlemen, to
determine what was meant by the
term in this case, and what was UNI
derstood by the term, in your judg-
ment, by readers of the paper in
which the article appeared.
Must Judge by Article
"You are not to do this by testl-
mony as to what the intentions of the
parties writing the article were, in
their hearts and minds, but by an ex-
. animation of the article itself within
its four corners.
'In other. words, it is for you tc
consider what you honestly believe
, the average reader would get from
the articvle. An editorial goes broad
cast over the world, and the best the
Jury can do is to determine from theil
, experience in life, and the testimony
in the case, as to what the thing was
!. what the average reader, in the place
where the article was circulated
! would get from it.
"Therc is no obligation on the par
of any citizen to agree with anybod,
: else on any subject on earth, whethe
it is the president secretary of state
I, or who. Every man has the right. t
: his own opinions and convictions, an
the right to advocate them in any res
sonable way. On the other hand,
: newspaper has the same right, prt
d viding they injure nobody.
! Press Has No Special Right
3 mo newspaper has the right t
y libel anybody for the sake Of promo
: ing their own opinions.
! 'Tf you become satisfied that tn
f charges or characteristics containe
t. in the editorial in question are true
re substance, that will end your consi'
= Grafton of the case, and your verde
will be for the defendant-no cau'
s Of action.
e. eff YOU become satisfied that Il
y charges or Characterization or char
- es in the editorial are true, you ms
then consider whether they consi
DIS tute fair comment or not. 1t is Il
ed right of everyone, not the privilege
ae any particular one, to comment IA
Of ly and honestly on any matter Of pu
ed lie interest, and the defense Of 'fs
comment is equally applicability het
~ err the criticism is oral or written.
"a "You should exercise care not to
tn Imisled by the word fair in this co
er nection. AS criticism is opinion,
an can never be primarily material to
nv quire into its business. The right
id criticise implies the right to judge I
EST oneself of the business of the eri
I'm cism. It would seem to be but
Ie- fusion to say that one has the right
So criticise, provided the criticism g
he never be more than matter OF op
"a ion. The test always is, Was
9se criticism bona fide? Was it hon
ids conviction Of the publisher? ]
question is, Was the comment homes
me If it was the writer's real ideas 9
i = was honestly written, then it '
ish fair as that term is used in the L
in and you must SO treat it. But or
m cism should not exceed the bounds
q fair comment. If the editorial
al question can be treated as fair e
eff ment, you win then find in favor
ION the defendant.
uly "But if you find there was no
~ tification for the use of the OF
Il. IA. Cummings, K. T. Catlett, F.
ley, Martin.