True American. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1835-18??, 1839-07-06
CRIMINAL COURT,
Confirmation Of WEDNESDA US Proceediuex
Ntsta IF l

lob, z; G;,soo for libel.
MIR X Hunt, said: that in criminal prose cuions 70
libel, the,ruth cannot be given in evidence. here wal
awide and marked distinction betw civil and crinna
matters. The criminal law considered libel in II,
other light than publication calculated 10 disturb tile
peace of the community. The very truth IL sometimes
the most c"lcu aed to sting individual and to INN,
him TO commit violence. Tn, Constitution, of severn
States the Uann hal bern read show That in tho
States by express clar,'s, III, truth be prove i,
all suits for libel. iowrv great the respec he f.l
Tor tho wisl 'm Of the trainers of those cons,ilu,irns
still tha p'e5"rrel to the Constitution cf Loni,
lana, in settling II l.ouisa,a ease. |, was a move
docttene to coltend thai, hccDuse the constitutions
Mississippi Mis- 'our &c, permitted the truth to be ad
ducsd in evidence. Louisiana, slould tukc them ns
law when our own constitutions contains sch pro.
vision.
No one more than he did, admired free disc ussion and
afree PRESS hut he advocate for Iicentous
prass. lie did not wish t" the press invading the
sanctuary of private life, disturbing the pc zee f
bring ing forward things which secret AMI whic
ID not affect the public: an thon, VIII N the mischief
was done tn shield itself by offer TO prove the
truth. There were many instances, in which the truth
would be rather aggravato Suppose the ca Sc Of
woman who in early life had erred, and who sh ,uld af.
forwards repent and lead life Of virtue Suppose that
John Gibson sh ouId drag forth this and expose
her carly faults which had been pardonrd in Heaven
would such publication be an abuse of the Gbeuv nj
ths pssssl Should the baer in such case he allow
ed prove the truth! In criminal suit for libe there
no issue between the ndviIui l,e.d and the nc
cused. The state prosecuss for act tending to dis
iurb the peare, and il the nth be admitted the nerson
lbelled should be made party-a thing impossible in
criminal case. We have been told that the doc
mainainsd by us. owes its origin TO the English Star
Chamber. He was no advocate oftha body, but at the
time it first laid down the docrn. that court was com
Parafiyely pure. Mr.. II however, maintained that this
doctrne hal its origin higher uP 1t WAS derived from
The civil law, asys,am approved by all enghted men,
sad based upon the soundest wisdom. The uniform
current Of The decisions except few cases. and they
Improperly reported, has been that the truth cannot be
admit ID in evidence defence to criminal suit fer
le Ne of authority be quoted to the contra
~. except in country, where those DECISIONS
based the nd constitutional provisions
Mr.. H. then read in support ofhs position, the law
oflibel from 4ih Blacklist 5), and from South Carolina
Const. Rep, of State Leary, Mr.. H., addition
quoted the statute Of this relative to SANDER and
which declares, that ain civil suit for SANDER deamas
zion lbs the truth may be plead justification He
argued thai this affirmative pregnant with neg
ativs. and that If the Legislature hal shed be
10 criminal cases, it would have been declared.
NM. N. CsHIs. Esq. in reply 70 the foregoing stated
~ substa that in arguing the point he did so no,
NEARLY the advocate Of desndsm for in the view he