Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-12-23
THE TRIAL OF NJ. NJ. NOAH.

! We have M possession very ample materi-
ais for "a full report of the trial of Nj. NJ. Noah,
FOR a libel on the character of Silvanus Mil
Ter; and had intended this day tn have pre-
scented 1t at full length to our readers Th.
important subject, however, which was taken
up and passed i'm the Common Council last
evening, with the press of other matter, has
Induced us tn conhne our review of it Ia "a
brief abstract of that part of the testimony,
IN which the public has concern. We are the
more disposed To content ourselves with this
from learning that Report oCthe Trial, de-
falling with accuracy and minuteness the
whole OF the testimony, copies also of the H.
bel, and of the publication which led To il, ,
| together with sketch of the arguments of
The Counsel, and of the charge Of Judg, Belts
to the jury, is already in press, and will be
presented To the public in few days, in a
pamphlet form.
| The trial commenced by exhibiting on the
part of the plaintiff he libel in question, which
Was in the form uf Il letter signed by NJ Nj.
Noah, addressed Ia the editors uf the ALBANY
| Argus aud published in that paper, and
published m the National Advocate (of which
the d. f,udant was Editor I'm tn. 5th of Fee
bruary, 1921. The subs ance of he libel con-
sisted in charging the Plaintiff with being a
Profiigate old man, in the habit of uttprng
what hr knew TO he false, an unprnciplrd in
| broker.
| The publication of the libel was admitted
by the Defendant, nor was it questioned that
| tile matter ii Contained was libeluus. Nine
witnesses were introduced by the Plaintiff
VINO testified To Il long acquaintance with him,
| To the purity of his character IN private life,
and the integrity with which, for 10 years, he
had discharged the duties of the office of Sur
rogate of the city and county of New York
| No effort was made by the Defendant To dis
parage the public or private character of the
PiaintIf, and they were distinctly admitted 10
he good. The admission however was qua
lifted by contending that he had been for IA
long series oi years warm and active politi-
cal partZan-a writer OF inflammatOry arti-
cles IN newspapers-and therefore disqualified
rom I. covering any but nominal damages for
an INJURY OF that sort which he had himself
provoked Th- Defendant proved the publ
cation of letter signed by thu Plaintiff and
| inserted in the Evening Post nf the 29th of
January, 1891, which ia substance charged the
Defendant with having offered TO sell himself
In the CiIntonian party, for the of $1,000
The Plaintiff then proceeded To prove the
facts set forth in that letter Ia be- true.
| A detail of the evidence offered On that is
sue, would occupy too much room for news
paper report. Ii was testified, that in 1913,
MI. Noah called on DR.. Secor, and solicited
pr ate interview, when he stated hat he had
| 4 desire To leave the station of editor of the
National AdyUcate--that he saw a great pe-
teal battle ahead, in which he shouid have 10
take an active part against Governor Clinton,
whom he highly respected, and again.t whom
he bad no personal objecton.-Tbat the COM
peasatiOn allowed him was small, and that lac
had a strong desire t"qmit tn, State and party.
He had bern offered, hr said, the opportunity
Ioi purchasing the mol-ty of leases of southern
theatres Tor $4,000, and perhaps 81 900 would
answer, but he had not the funds. He there
fore wished DIR. Secor TO apply tu his Clinlunian
friends for loan 20 that amount, To be securrd
by a mortgage upon the theatre leases, and
stated as an inducement, that they would
thereby get rid nf powerful political opponent.
/ FMS application WAS to be made known TO
the iii.ndS of Gov. Clinton only, aud 10 be
concealed from the Bucltai party. He com
planned of the latter AS lberal, aud as having
I'll used him in an application for AN Office AT
the suggestion of DR.. Src0r, Mr.. Noah put the
! proposition in writing, and on giving il 10 him
the next morning, the Doctor testified, on a
second examination, that he then asked him.
what he could do for Mr.. Clinton? Mr.. n.
replied that he would not make any pledge on
that head, but if he did any thing il must be
done sub rosa, and not az coming from him
Ii must be left to himself, and not form any
part Of the stipulation. That he was dis
pleased with President Monroe for removing
MIR. Half and wished for chance to give him
. rap over the knuckes, from Philadelphia or
| Baltimore.
Pursuant To this proposition meeting was
held by four of the friends of Mr.. Clinton
when the proposition was laid beiorethem and
| rejected. The paper containing it was return
ed to MIR. Noah, and there the matter ended
There was some further testimony offered
cOrrObOrative of that which was given BY the
members Of the mesting, and particularly TO
confirm that of DR.. SecOr the principal wit
ness. An attempt was also made by the De.
PENDANT to impeach the testimony Of the last
witness by proving that he had given other and
different representations of the facts than those
To which he testified on the trial. Ii would he
impossible, without exceeding our purposed
limits to exhibit the relative hearings ui these
questions upon the case, as managed by able
and adruit counsel on either side. The fore
going il believed To- be fair and faithful out
line Of the testimony adduced on the trial
II is brief, and of course an imperfect sketch
hut ~ we would not" set down augbt in NAL
ice" it is hoped that the public may be able
to form, when The pamphlet shall make IFS ap
pearance, correct judgment of this extraor-
binary aud unprecedented transaction.
" ]. finer.
The n. Y. Advocate gives also statement
Of the above case, different Of course from
that Of the American not going extensively
into the Evidence. II then adds:
The abO,eis brief outline Of the great case
of Sll,anus Miller against the editor of fhi.
paper. The public will recOllect the pledge
1 of Miller to prove The fact on the trial Of this
cause, that the Editor ofthis paper had offer