Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1837-11-30

Howard in defrauding the public government OF pro-
perty at Staten Island.
Answer-No.
By Maxwell-Where there any frauds Of any kind
committed the public property by public officers
at Staten Island.
Answer.-No.
Mr.. Vermlyea examined.
Mr.. Maxwe.-ln the letter of Jaly 9th, Mr.. Yer
milyea, you are charged with being concerned with
Major Howard in defraudng the government. Is
that truel
Answer.-No.
Mr.. Maxwell.-In that letter, Mr.. Thompson says
to Mr. Woodbury-"M Mr.. Vermlyea is connected with
him-ask Martin Van Buren about this Vermyea-
he knows HIM by the name Of Wall street Long
Toni" Is that Irue2
Answer.-No.
Question. ITO Swarwoutl Is there any ground
whatever for these charges!
Answer.-No.
Question-Has there been Mr.vermilyea known
in Wall street, by the name Of Long Tom?
Answer think SO.
Mr. Hazard examincd.-Was present when Mr..
Thompson was arrested. Asked him why he made
such false charges againt Major Howard. He said If
Major Howard had let him alone about the post
office, he would have let MAJ or Howard alone.
Case rested.
Counsel for defence moved for a nonsu;t on the
ground that no express malice had been made out.
The Court said in ordinary cases OF SANDER, when
the charge was shown to be false then malice
inferred matter of course, b.: IN special cases ex
press malice must be shown. In this case if Mr..
Thompson had been actuated by public motive only
as good citizen, to reeltly what ne considered
abuses then although the charges might be ever so.
untrue, the action for special libel would not iie-he
law would not even hold him answerable TO prove
the truth of his charges. Malice In legal sense is
different from malice III common parlance; in the
first, malice is supposed TO spring from savage and
revengeful feeling; but IN the law, If man does
act from governing motive that is unJIshable, that
alone constitutes malice In this case we have TO
look at Thompsons governing motive; and here he
has not left in the DARK or left any thing to infer
ence He SAYS he would not have made the charges,
IL H.. -
This was the governing notive-lt was uDjustifiabe
it was malicious the express malice Is made out
and the case must go 10 the jury.
The counsel for the defence quoted several cases
from Wendell and Starkle; the LIST case in the 5lh of
Johnson-Thorn versus Blanchard-where charge
was made agains, district attorney by letter TO the
council Of appointment, also from the 18th Wendell
Vanderzee VS.. McGregor, and several Others.
They also contended that Mr.. Woodbury. ought not
to have taken the letters from off his files that
letters petitions sent 10 heads of departments COM
planning of the conduct of public officers ought TO be
shown, for il would prevent any good citizen from
complaining for fear of an action for libel The de-
PENDANT had stated nothing OF his own knowledge in
the letters-he had told what he heard Others say
he gave the names of witnesses who might be applied
10 to ascertain the truth or faehood OF the charges,
and he signed his to the letters. The counsel
for the prosecution must show that deep rooted
malice ranked in his heart before he can be put on his
defence they mast show the existence OF deadly
enmity and that 10 crafty his private malice ne made
charges which he could not prove.
Court decided that the words used TO Hazard pro-
we'd the governing motive and showed express ma
lice.
The counsel for The defence thsn opened the case
for the defence. They wished 10 bring evidence 10
prove (by sort of side wind) that Major Howard
took timber from the public store 10 build in his
house, and that although II could now be explain
ed why he did so, yet they wished by this evidence
and in this way 10 show the facts existed as stated in
he letters, without attempting to justify the charges
made-and that the defendant believed what he sta
ad tn he r1A no mi
The court objected 10 the starting OF these abstract
questions, and decided that If they brought in this
evidence, II must be considered as an attempt 10 JUS
tfy the libel, and must 20 TO the jury unquafedly
such.
They took exceptions, and called their witnesses.
They first, however, cited the case of King, versus
Bailey and another case from StaTkeiwhere letter
was addressed TO the Secretary al War, complaining
of an officer who would not pay the writer deb,
the Judge in Mat decided that the letter contained
expressions such as an angry man would use who
thought he had been Ill treated and though would
have been libel had it been generally circulated yet
being only private letter, and shown 10 no one, II
no libel.
case was also quoted from 9Th Cohen, page 2l4
The counsel for the defence also contended that the
Court should take notice OF the plea of Justification
entered on the record by them.
The court decided that the Judge of the Circuit
Court had power over the record-he must take il
as il comes to hm-he cant cover II up-nor sane
ton the disclaimer. The Supreme Court alone could
do that.
They then wished 10 call evidence for the purpose
of rebutting the charge of malice.
The Court SAID all the evidence they brought must
20 to the jury without any qualification attempt
10 Justify the libel complained Of
Mr.. Egbert called He knew one public store
was repaired and pulled down. The timber taken
out of them was worth $500. After this Major How
ard built hobse worth $4,000. lie put some of the
public timber n the first tier of beams of that house.
Saw 80 or 40 loads OF mber carted up the hill to-
wards the Major house with the Majors team. Told
Mr.. Thompson of this in the spring OF 1886.
Question.-Had you the intention of telling the Sc
cretary of the Treasury Of this.
Overruled.
Cross. examined at General Van Buren's
house one night-Col. Barton, member of Congress,
was there and Mr.. Thompson, and Mr.. Simondson.
Night have said he'd rather lose $1,000 than Thomp-
son should lose the sut-thc posts and beams in the
public store were rotten and uRsound. Major How
ard and had little difficulty built house for GO
verHment under Major Howards inspection he found
fault with the way in which part OF the werk was
done; il was before 1892; never applied TO Major
Howard to tell him about the depredations complain
ed of; the first store repaired in 1882; might
have been one year and half after il done that
| told Thompson; the timber was taken away in the
day time; never knew of any sale of United States
property whilst Major Howard was al Staten Island:
the State property was sold at public auction.
General Van Buren, examlned-Was an officer un-.