Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1824-01-13
ilNMNSNlN.
From the New-York Evening rosl

| FROM Nile NV DIX E4NCiib5 bSts
Miller vs.. Noah. The suit com
meme by Sylvanus Miller, Esq. against
Nj. NJ. Noah, for lihel published in the
National Advocate in 1921, came on for
trial Yesterday morning al ten O'Clock, al
the City Hail, before his honor, Judge
B,us.
The defendant published in 1921, thai
SYN anus Miller wasa pronisale old man
lnat he vas IN The daily habIl OF ultermg
what he knew to be ia se; hat he was
an unprineipied intriguer, and political
broker, and, in fact, communicated The
idea that he was a man destitute Of truth,
honor, and virtue. For this libel Mr..
Miller commenced suit, and laid his
damages al ten thousand dollars.
On the trial Of the cause, Mr.. Miller's
character was proved 10 be unblemIshed
and unlmpedchabic, both in public and
in private liie. Such men as Chancellor
Kent, David Geiston, General Bailey,
p. A Jay, j ,hn Ferguson, Honty Rem
sen, Philip Hone, James Campbell, and
those OF a SINH ar standing IN the COM
munily, were called on as Witnesses,
and their testimony was highly honora-
Bile to The plaintiff. Many o them had
kuuwu hrrr, sor ,wsuly AID en,y Eve
years. In fact, il was admitted and stat
ed with much candor by the counsel OF
Noah, that they conceded the lair
ness of Mr.. MllIer's character, and no
single effort was made To prove the
truth of the libel The only set-olf as
to the character, which the counsel for
the defendant presented, was the general
warmth and ACTIVITY OF Nj. Miller as a
politician, and his general reputation as
a warm political writer.
The counsel tor the defendant rested
their defence on different grounds. In
1921 Mr. Miller published in the Eve
ning Post, that in 1918, Mr.. Noah made
propositions to the lreDds OF Mr.. Gin
tons admins ration, tor loan OF money j;
that he manifested wish 10 leave bis
party-to qul, the National Advocate
to go TO the south to manage certain thea
tres IN fact. that IN subs ance, he offered
to sell himself to the friends OF Mr., Gin
ton, and that the proposition was REJECT
Ell. This publication produced the IL
bel in question, pnrporllns to be reply
10 Mr.. Miller's statement.
Fac plaintiff" counsel called witness
es TO prove that all which Mr. Miller
stated WIS true. They called the per-
son to whom it was SAID Mr.. Noah made
the proposition, and the persons who
held meeting to consider ii, and who
promptly rejected any thing relating to
any arrangement with the defendant.
Judge Belts gave clear, foil and i'm
partial charge TO the jury about O'Clock,
when they retired, and after being out
all night, came into court at 10 O'Clock
this morning, declaring they could not
agree upon verdict.
As this testimony will be laid before
the public in the shape of correct re-
port o. the lrial, and as the Iury did not
agree, we refrain from any comments on
the evidence Of this poinI.--Hundreds
were in the Hall--heard the whole sto-
ry--ani they must Judge for themselves
The use was 'nanaged ny r. II, Emn!et,
p. C. Pan Wvck, and C.. G. Ratnes
for the plaintiff, and by j. Aqthoa, ana
" NJ Price. for the defendant. Tbs
eloquent speech, IN particular, OF Nj
Enmel, Tor its great principles as re-
CARDS morals, and the good Of society, is
SAID never 10 have been excelled on any
similar occasion.
We understand the point on which
the jury disagreed, was merely on the
amount OF damages, and not on the merits
Of the case.