Show p ithe wile tiie law el some very queer gaes have grown out of libel suits and we would aou ld not advise idy ise lse any auy one ond to enter such affairs without a very good 1 rea e r ord odi ori but nut being in N without being able AM to td withdraw a few points may nat be without value they are especially valuable as referring to matters wh ich should not be entered j upon if it is ible ibie to keep out of tile tho way of them there were werd some soine points which were wore made in recent decisions in philadelphia phi ll adelphia that are worth a glance for it is abw always a y s better to avold avoid a difficulty than to get into it and then fight tight t judge finletter odthe philadelphia phi 1 a court in the cao caso of the chief of police of that ity city vs joseph 11 I 1 reed a reporter report er foi for the sunday T times mes charge libel thus affirms the points of the libel law jaw as anun i elated by judge dean in the cambria county court some somo rn months ago if tho the jury nind hud that the alleged libelous matter matted admits naturally of two constructions one of a li Belou I 1 character and tile tho other northey not they are bound bou nd in law liw to put upon it that t co construction which is not 1 li I belous eo and to bythe defendant I 1 E even n if the allegations in the tho ak ticie were q f false alse if no ridall malicious lous ious intent existed here waslo was no I 1 libel ibell kven ven van if the article is libelous if no i malicious intent n tent exist existed ed the defendant would not be guilty under derth the law elaw the subject of the article being boing proper matter for public information it was so tar far privileged ged that malice mailee is not to bo ba presumed from mere indre fact of publication us as in in other libell but the tho question of malice roust be decided by the jury from the tho character of the alleged li libelous belous article the thet circumstances atte attending its publication and any other othor in the case calse tending to explain tho the intent the tho rule i of law as to 66 the presumption p or of m allce from the tho publication of a libelous fi belous article is this where w here the publication of a libelous article haa haJ jeen proved unaccompanied by nuy auy evidence which explains 00 tio intent tiie the law presumes from th the tho 01 libelous i ellar cliar character acter of the theartic theartie arciclo arti artl eco clr cLO ji that it t was as a published maliciously but where there are attending circumstances calcut calculated atea to exola explain i in the Iii in tent the question of malice asfor tile the jury J ury As the person jen ren referred erred wt to 0 hi lwi the of iti iii lit itt the indict menti ments uell ff was vyt ma a in of ticla tIcIA olt I 1 ion lon conj any aily information conic concerning rilla his boffl official cial eini c conduct on duct was vas proper for public information if it was the he purpose of tile the defendant defend int acting as a newspaper per reporter report br t to gip qi p the public such suell information lb the occasion of the publication avi was waa lawful and the defendant ef enfant ra y justify or excuse it the occasion being bein lav lawful nul nui 1 if ti the le defendant dant proceeded with it good motive I 1 upon probable upon reasons which were apparently good and upon the tile supposition that tile llie th estate sta in en ty made to him hinl under oath belinn and 6 embodied in the article complained of were true liis ills ili iii letlon action was v ij excusable and lie is ia not guilty of publishing a malicious libel doubt doat either as to the libelous Cha character rieter of the tho article orthe malic malicious ioui loui intent of the defendant jefe fe fen entitles entities him to an acquittal american wel newspaper i asp j apar report cr aa a a 0 o rt |