| Show NO LIBEL ON LOCHRIE t J 4 I The Celebrated Tuscarora Jurist I Loses His Case I FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 4 Judge Zaiio Reiterates His Views on This Subject p Th Libel Suit of Lochrle TI the Deseret News Comes Up Two Divorce Cases Filed Yesterday District Court Orders The demurrer of the defendants in the case of Peter LochrieTS the Dcseret News I t company came up for argument in the I Third district court late yesterday afternoon after-noon The suit was filed on May 12 1892 and Justice Loohric demanded damages in the sum of 5000 for defamation of character The article complained of was written subsequent to Justice Lochries decision in the case of H T Duke vs Elias A Smith and A G Norrell for the possession of certain books and records belonging to the Democratic central committee com-mittee and was as follows THE RUSE OF THE TOSCAROKAS The decision or Justice Locarie In the case ot the Tuscaroras who want to be recognized i as the Democratic party ot Utah is to us rk amusing It will be found in another part of this paper The defendants it will be remembered re-membered filed a demurrer to tho complaint und submitted vrlthout argument The justice jus-tice appsa s to think this was a submission of the case for he not onlv overrules the demurrer demur-rer which it was expected he would do but he proceeds decide the case on its merits before any trial hastaUen place We say It Vas expected ex-pected he would overrule the demurrer Certainly Cer-tainly His associations with the complainants complain-ants his holding his court In Boss Powers of c flise the whole manner of the proceedings led to that anticipation We suppose the defendants defend-ants will take proper steps tohave this matter V settled by a competent court although the whole thing is looked upon as a farce the purpose pur-pose and intent of It are such that it cannot bo treated with tho contempt that it deserves nor subverted by the ridicule which it everywhere evokes THERE WAS KO LIBEL In passing upon the case Judge Zane said in substance J The plaintiff in this case avers that the defendant by the words published conveyed that the plaintiff as a lawyer is ignorant of the principles of law and unfitted un-fitted to hold and exercise the power and authority of a justice of the peace and whereby the said defendant did charge plaintiff with corruption in office as such justice of the peace by charging that he held court in the law office of O W Powers The language of the article of course may be construed to mean anything any-thing that the words upon a reasonable construction would authorize and in view of the circumstances under which the language was usp As inducement here there is not i explain further than that plain avers hat he at all times had deme ied himst as an honest man and an hr est attorny etct and had never been t uspectod or incapacity or dishonesty eo tt thpr is nothing avowed in this oomph 3 4 that would give f to the language alleged to be libillous anything more than its ordinary meaning mean-ing as applied to a justice of the peace and an attorney The article complained of is as follows Reads article In view of the avowments of the complaint as to inducement or the circumstancesIdont think the construction put upon these words is authorized It would be unreasonable unrea-sonable to draw such a conclusion and the public wouldnt so understand it Thequestion might be as to whether it would tend to bring the plaintiff into ridicule and contempt That is another A question but the charge as here made f is corruption in office In this country as I have had occasion to remark before we have a constitutional provision that guarantees freedom of speech and the press It is not every criticism or unfavorable comment on public officers that amounts to a libel unless it is published for some malicious or improper im-proper purpose Newspapers and others have a right to criticise and comment upon the conduct of public officers to a reasonable extent and with proper motives mo-tives Of course they have no right to misrepresent or state falsehoods about a public officer for the purpose of bringing J him into contempt but they have a right 1k to indulge in reasonable criticism I 1 dont think the language used in the article ar-ticle authorizes the inference that the intention was to charge the plaintiff with corruption in office The demurrer is sustained |
