New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-12-15

~
risemenis will please bear in mind that terms are
asd however unpleasant may be for To REFUSE we eao
no, hereafter permit this rule 10 be infrDged QUE
Is fpn, and we have no Collector.
~ The City News is unavoidably crowded ont
p The letter Of our Philadelphia correspond
emf is unayoidably crowded out this morH'ng'
rs. p a rho Law of Lfbel--The
Coopsrssown Decasion'
ye +-,., NO ono has understood US as complain
inc Of ,ny sspeeial hardship ia our Trial for Libel
., Ball.top. We meant nothing like this. As
we have already said, we were treated as we'll as
o,he, Editors who have had the misfortune to be
.ned by Mr.. ]. Fenimore Cooper for speaking their
mind of him. True, 1t did not seem possible TO
US beforehand that any Judge could take the view
of the facts in our case that Judge Willard actually
did take, and without which he could not have in
struc,ed the Jury to bring in exemplary damages
But that is our personal misfortune or mistake
and the like has happened to ltigators many times
before, and will many times again. 1t Is to the
general doctrines laid down and insisted on by the
Courts, in this and similar cases, that we desire
to call attention; and this end we invite atten-
ton to turn of the screw which was given at
Cooperstown month or two since, when the last
previous iustalment of the Cooper Fund was tried
out Of Thurlow Weed We wanted to speak Of
this at the time; but as we had similar case
coming on In the next Circuit, we thought it more
decorous to wait. Let US now state the facts:
Some Country paper had made statement with
regard to Fenimores conduct at Fonda at the time
he obtained his $500 judgement BY inquest against
Mr. Weed, stating particularly that Mr.. Cooper
did thus and 3d. and thence drawing the conclusion
that a man acho soould do thus and so mast be
more savage than Mingo,' or words to that
effect, referring to some of Mr.. Cooper's ferocioue
Indian characters Mr.. Weed copied this para
graph into the Journal was thereupon sued, and
the plaintiff declared on the words we have placed
in Italics, and Mr.. Weed pleaded justification
Such was substantially the case.
Now under his plea of Justification (Which nd
mts and aggravates the libel charged, but is held
to give the widest range Of proof,) Mr.. Weed OF
fered TO show that Mr.. Cooper did thus and so
stated and that, consequently. the inference could
not be malicious, but honest burst of indignation
provoked by the conduct of Fenimore himself =
But the Judge ruled out all thss testimony-de
Gliding that the premises, if established, did not
justify the inference-and, therefore, falling unde,
the head of irrelevant testimony, must be
cluded So here was the forlorn defendant, after
pleading Justification aggravating his alleged Of
fence in order to get in the facts of the case,
allowed to put in the first word He was
quired to justify; but how could he upon any pos
&c IL bo11 Far
guilty Of libel in saying, in substance, (" A man
who will sue another for defamation, and push
the cause to trial in the defendants absence
the second day Of term, while he knows that the
defendant is kept away by the dangerous illness OF
his wife and daughter-why, such man must be
worse than savage!" Wells he offers to prove
what he has charged; but how7 The Judge says
he shall not be allowed to prove that the plaintiF
did push his case to trial, as stated, in the alb
sence Of the defendant and that that absence
really caused by the severe illness of his wife and
the dangerous state of bic daughter. Well, then,
how is he to justify What is he to justify 2
Why the conclusion, that such man must be
savage. But this was based on the premises al
ready cited, and on these he relies to justify it.
The only possible way in which the conclusion
could be justified is by the premises, and these he
must not show. How, then, are the Jury to de-
sermine whether the conclusion were or were not
legitimate How shall they decide the case when
they are not permitted to know any thing aboutit
The Court settles the whole matter. 1t first de-
clares that the matter charged is libel, and the
plaintiff must be put on his Qualifications he offers
n md ha hot
premises do not warrant his conclusion, and must
not be put In to explain it. He is gagged, bound,
snd laid under the table, while twelve men 81.
upon him to determine, not whether what he said
was properly called forth by the plaintiffs CEN
duct, for that is not allowed to be shown bu,
how great damages they can be ringboltel to give
in state of most blissful ignorance of the whole
matter at issue. The trial of course is farce, OF
rather sacrifice, in which the victim is inevitably
doomed from the outset; the only question being
whether he shall be enboweled or only skinned
As no has aggravated his guilt by attempting to
justify, the former lie the more probable result.
And this answers the common insuity- Why
don't goa justify on one ofthese cases z The sim
pie answer is tina. no state of facts will be allowed
to form justification. We state certain things
which A. B. has done which seem to me very
mean, and say they are mean. He sues US for
heci and declares on our expression OF optimism.
We undertake to justify, and the Court stops US !:
You can't give that in evidence, sir!-if it is ali
true 1t does MT prove that A. B. was mean. Yes;
understand that to be your Honor's opinion; but
'n'' Is the issue we are trying have called this