In the absence of statutory or constitutional provisions to the contrary, the truth of the matter charged is a good defence to a civil action for either slander or libel,72 and the fact, under such circumstances that the defendant published the charges maliciously is immaterial.73 In several of the States at the present time, however, it is provided either by the State Constitution or by statutes, that truth is a good defence to such actions, only when the truth is published with good motives and for justifiable ends.74

65 Davis vs. Hamilton, 85 Minn., 64, 92; N. W., 512; Williams vs. McKee, 98 Tenn., 139; 38 S. W., 730.

66 Littleton vs. Greeley, 13 Abb. Pr. 41.

67 Hatch vs. Patter, 7 111., 725.

68 Reed vs. Harper, 25 Iowa, 87.

69 Wilson vs. Nooman, 35 Wis., 321;

Cady vs. Brooklyn Union Pub.

Co., 23 Misc., 409; 51 N.E.;

Suppl. 198; Sharpe vs. Larson,

67 Minn., 428; 70 N. W. 1. 70 Morse vs. Times-Republican Printing Co., 124 Iowa, 707;

100 N. W., 867. 71 Mitchell vs. Milholland, 106 111.,

175; Hanger vs. Benna, 153

Ind., 642; Evening Post Co. vs. Richardson, 113 Ky., 641;

68 S. W., 665. 72 Heilman vs. Shanklin, 60 Ind.,

424; Mundy vs. Wight, 26

Kan., 173.

73 Foss vs. Hildreth, 10 Allen

(Mass.), 76.

74 Larson vs. Cox, 68 Nebr., 44; 93

N. W., 1011; Please vs. Ban-ford, 96 Me., 23; 51 Atl., 234.