The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-05-15
Court OF Oyer aud Termimer.

MAY A.-Trrai Of VIM L. Stone for libel an the Cour
Of Oyer and Tsrminer-Aher the opening of the Court
and the names Of the Jurors had been called Mr. Graham
said wish the District Attorney 10 state the positions
law on which he intends to rely in this case The Dis
rict Attorney then gave the different and rules Of
law on which he intended to RELY when Mr.. Graham
asked if he know by intuition all the contents
the books to which the District Attorney had referred
and said he was entitled call the District Attorney
to state the principles of law which he valid. To this
the District Attorney replied that he relied the gene
raj principles of the law OF libe-he admitted that the
jury judges both of the law and the fact and MAN,
tanned that the idence showed malice not only implied
but expressed.
Mr.. GRAHAM then rose and addressed the Jury in q
speech upwards three hours in DURATION explaining
the law Of libel referred to private citizens and pub
lie men, stating that the trainers Of the constitution this
country had been jealous OF the liberty of the press that
they had made fundamental law OF the land that the
jury should be- in Of trial for libel the Judges both
of the law and the fact which has not been done any
other whatever. He went on to define the duties oil
the jury and stated that there much greater latitude
allowed to the press in crcising the actions of public
men, than in criticsng those Of private citizens; that
whereas in the latter case malice always implied
the face OF libel; the former it was not ano
although the facts which were stated might be
untrue or the differences which might be drawn
from those facts were incorrect yet if it could
be shown that there probable for the opinions
stated differences drawn sufficient justification
and an action for libel would not lie He then went on to
consider the libel which the present indictment
found and to explain the motive (Which he said appa
rent the face OF W which had acuatcd Colonel Stone
in its publication.
In the explanation of the LIBEL he to make j,
tn Al corrupt Aldermen
Purdy and Lee but merely insinuated that they
made tools by Mr. Morrell and Mr. Haett the Clerk
the Supreme Court for fhe purpose of nsurng either the
acquittal Of James Gorden Bennett editor Of the New
York Herald, in of h conviction that light
encc should be inflicted. He further said that from the
evidence appeared that Mr. Hastt and Alderman Purdy
satisfied with explanation published by Coonei
Stone and that Alderman Lee the only and
concluded by expressing his hope OF instantaneous de
for his client when the case was submitted to
the jury.
said that he had but object and that to his
client from the verdict OF NOT guilty He said that in the
two indictments which James Gordon Bennett editor
Of the Herald had been convicted and sentenced fine
Of $3.50 he had bsen merely charged with holding up
rdcule contempt Judges Of the Court Of Sessions
and on that occasion the presiding Judge whose opinions
had been overrue by the associated Aldermen had sale
that his opinion had prev allied he should have
MIR. Bennett to Imprisonment. Now his client was no.
charged with merely holding the Judges to contempt
was charged with imputing corruption and corrupt
tires to the judges This deeper crime than that OF
Benefits and the jury found his client guilty this
indictment he held the learned Judge pledged mprson
his client according the opinion he had dev in the
former cause, that if his client found guilty and
only of the Associate Aldermen should agree in OPT
Mon with the Judge, he must suffer Imprisonment. He
vent on to state that the duty Of Editor to in
form the public Of delinquency which he might sup
to have been committed by the Public Officials and
that although such matter might not be true, yet if il
could be proved that the Editor had sufficient probable
cause to induce him to think such matter to be true he
could not be convicted OF libel He said the Bench had
been packed the occasion of the trial of Mr. Ben.
nett and party feelings called into operation, and ami
madvered on the conduct of Mr. Hallet to whom he
said the libel applied and not to Aldermen Purdy and Lee
He went to state that malice could be implied in
publication concerning the acts Of public functionaries
where there probable for the publication
express malice must be proved He also told the jury
that they could not find: special verdict in such
case as this They could not find him guilty Of merely
holding the Judges up to contemplating if they found
him guilty would be of imputing corrupt motives to
the Judge He also SAID that Aldermen Purdy and Lee
allies Of the Herald and after animadvertng the
fact OF Aldermen Purdy and Lee, having consulted a
counsellor to draw up an opinion for them, he ex.
pressed fear that the eloquence and ability OF the Dis
trct Attorney whom he was willing yield the palm
Of superiority might from the fact Of his having the
word exercise great influence their verdict aud
cluded by expressing hope that they would send him
from the Court with honor.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY then and said-May it
please the CourtGentlemen Of the JuryThs case has
been magnfed into great importance arising
from the circumstance of Colonel Stone being distin
guhed member of certain society, the influence which
his exercises over certain portion of society and
the ability which the editors possess Of making that paper
the vehicle Of SANDER and abuse With the punishment
which the learned Counsel seem to think must of neces
sity follow verdict neither you have anything
to do. You there to examine and to find whether
this paper shall be allowed to SANDER and v the Judges
othe land Gentlemen the conductor of the public press
has his bertythe private citizen has his libery-the
public officer has his beryCourts and uries have their
bertiealfthese have their rights and is Colonel Stone
tobe protected in rampng these rghs7 Is he to be
allowed to succeed in tramplng all the privileges
the citizens and public pressl You are not to forget
that other sssus have rights Wehaye had introduced
disconnected and without reference TO those proceedings
Gentlemen, has been assumed that the high and dgni
fed station which Colonel Stone occupies to stand be.
tween him and the sentence due TO libeller. Is
this to be allowed to distinguish between this and
that OF poorer man Is not the law equal for all Isnot
the justice to be meeted him another cr-
minal? Are not the motives and intentions Of Colonel
Stone TO be enquired into as well as another And il
Colonel Stones language is ustfabe there is no libel
in it, why these fears for the result of this cause Why
attempt to brighten you from the calm consideration of this
cause Why tell you that you must acquit the prison
arn fhp Ind inn Cole Qxnno
to stand before and that the punishment due to
beller is heavy him bear therefore you are
to nterpose and for the sake of his children Of his friends
and his counsel must save him from that sentence the
justice of which has been conceded by the counsel If he
is found guilty of the libel alleged fhesc consdera-
tons to weigh with the Jury have mistaken the
countenanccs of this Jury We have been detained here
four tedious days with the evidence in which is
considered to be of the simplest description. We have
been occupied four days in discussing extrancous
propose TO back and the charge made against
Colonel Stone and If there evidence to satisfy
that he has written and published libel and you will
give your verdict accordingly. We must remember
that the Counsel have taken different grounds with
lbeous. or that if libellous it was on others than
those charged they have said that it justfablc
and they have oeredto the truth of the allegations
The bodncss the Counses zeal has carried them
to attack the character two Judges and that OF the Dis
rict Attorney and il they have attached more impor
this case has been from fear of the
which would attend the verdict OF upright and honest
jury They have rcsored to forms Of law their
Client and yet they forget that these forms prevented
matter which they complain OF being Left out. This same
paragraph say they anxious have an
opportunity of proving is direct charge but such
an nsnuaton a cowardly beer would adopt instead
Of making direct charge which would be tangible
thing to take hold Of there any ntmation that the
Mr. Lee referred TO is the Alderman Lee who is said
wishes to purchase the silence of the Herald Gentlemen
the nsnuaton is unworthy OF the notice Of Mr. Lett is
unworthy Of manly editor On the same principle by
which these gentlemen attempt to justify this libel Mr.
Bennett any other editor may write libel and insert
some paragraph having connection with it, and when
brought to trial may attempt ojusy his libel by saying
this paragraph which has connection whatever with
the Libel, is true and they prove it. The question
gentlemen is not between Colonel Stone and Alderman
Purdy and Lee, but between yourselves and common
lbeer-whethsr you will give general license to any
person who chooses to set public press to libel every
person he chooses The questions you have TO
Try are the publication whether the matter is beous and
the motive OF the publication You have heard the learned
counsers argument that Aldermen Purdy and Lee were
untitled from want oflega requirements for sitting that
bench If that be so, with what confidence the gen.
ueman say that twelve jurymen who have perhaps
never looked into law book in your life both Judges
of the law and the feet What becomes their argument
that the Aldermen iii for Judges Formerly the