Merk

1. The defendant failed to show that he was entitled to a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The affidavit of Johnson, if otherwise sufficient, was produced *633 under circumstances, as shown by counter-affidavits, which exposed it to the suspicion of bad faith. It was not sufficient to raise a reasonable presumption that the testimony of Johnson, if produced, would change the result.

2. The defendant justified the speaking of the words alleged to be slanderous, on the ground that they were true.

The court instructed the jury that, “in order to make good his defense, the defendant is required to prove the plaintiff guilty of the crimes imputed to him by the slanderous words, by testimony sufficient to convict the plaintiff of those charges on a criminal trial; and if the defendant has failed to do this, the jury must find for the plaintiff.”

This correctly states the law. “To support a special plea in justification where crime is imputed, the same evidence must be adduced as would be necessary to convict the plaintiff upon an indictment for the crime imputed to him; and it is conceived that he would be entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubts of his…