The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-05-17

m col
am here in the light Of an adviser of the Jury in
this think tits my duty to advise the Jury how the
ject that advice as YOU think proper. Now gentlemen
will turn to the facts before us in this case II
that William l.. Stone is charged with libel on Elijah F.
Purdy and Frederick r. Lee The Indictment ,ocs on 10
that Gordon Bennett was indicted at SOM
time prior to the publication of bs libel siaeJ in The in
dictment for two lihe,s m Ir,n.s 7 ,"h al NJ
that these indictments were tried bcfore This Couri
and such trial he was found piltv and Sentenced 70
fine of $3.50 case and of 100 in the other aleres
scanaaous libel and insnuatei that Aldermen prrdy anJ
Lee corrupt Judges and unfit 10 preside in tbis
and so forth Now. with reference to the auestion
whether the Jury can find verdict of uuiItv if anv ono
of the nten alleged is proved In the Course of the nr
secution las been maintained that provided one incnt
only was proved the Indictment would stand pood and
verdict OF guilty returned There are at least three
intents laid in his indirtrer, ,aa;ns, coi,na g.. ~
is charged with endcavoring 10 hr;na Tho 90, ;, ~
dial and holding il up 10 ri3culr and det,s+a,ion tha,
The second insnuaes that they were corr,nt mp
cs and that the rights of the poope had been sbvcr
and tamperel with That is the D, aegaton and The al l.
that held UP the Judges Characters To mbiic rd;crs
if of these intents in the Indictment onv is proved
the indictment is m eintaned On that sub;ect aer Ls
best reflection have been able TO give tn il have
to the conclusion that If one intent be nroy.i
the indictment will! be maintained On This srhcct 40
rely my own opinion merely but am supported bv
decisions in other Courts Here the Jdge raTcrred ~
Roscoes Criminal Jursprudencc in which il ia a;d down
that is SD c lent to provc one intent only and also 70
Starke, 3. 35l We win now proceed 10 the evidence on
this subject The prosecution is however the publica
ton of the libel by William L. stone. II appears Ina,
William l.. Stone is proprietor of the Commercial
Adv ertser, and the affidavit of John Inman proves
that the information from which tho article was
written, was furnished TO him bv some nerson
whose name he refuses tell that Colonel Stone was
in the day of public alton and he saw the article
before ii was published There is proof also offered nv
the District Attorney tina. paper was purchased on The
day it was published at the office This is sufficient 10
prove the publication The next question for consdcra
lion is whether the publication il lbeous or not This
one difficult particular in this dcscrption Of litigation
to al Al
lawyer, Lord Camden that he never could give
proper definition of what a libel was, And Believe
that every lawyer and every Law man no has Thought o
this subject has found the same in decrw;nng
what lIclis In SANDER there is no dlcntv in DEEP
ding for the law is clear and we'll defined on his suhect
AMI be wished that there as the same clearnes on
the subject of libel The decis;ons Of The hos,
and judges that ever lived accord with that of Hamilton
which Is name never 10 Inc ment;oneJ nv mo hn With
yencration in SAVING that be s cn.or;oms or r;d;cn
ling writing picturs or sion made win mschiexons
and malicious intcnt tow.sris rovemment ma~stras ~
indiviraIs Hall savs ihoS ;s rnal;n;ons W
exnresscd e;,her in rir,n~ or r,;n NV h s;m. %
tures &C. tnni;rt, a,hnr -, vi. " ~ W ~ s ~ P
who ;s doad ,,i,h n,.n, ~ Wv, 1;! y, V t
renn,a,on of NV h !; " ,i a ~. ,hs' -. w.
~ ui %; Va ua3 VINO sNe, ana tnerepy expos.
mSst thereorn ba n,o,ico,s iSapa,; y, a ~ -.
ais, ox noss ~ verso, Iihn,,na 20 Ill; IN ~,
trmn and In ,he casa ., pannat, , , ,u =.
ton i;,nJnn 20 Ly;no ,ha -. ;.n s i, o
o. merely len snp '' hovin No smc i; Uon,;dp'
10, So m ~. s nv ~, i'ol.
he iibciions Tho ha IL ama;nt h,s p mus, nnI
Alderman 90 as rdgasso o,nss, ~ a NO. ;, a,a
ohcrs 7, ia -, Is s vi. u'u s'G s
court TIL conns.I e. Jc -, ,1 Jst. ~.
i;bai aoa;nst xn n, ~ VI, .,'' -, :. ~ 'v
nersons m , ,h a,u Az 49, , oI .a H,.
sc, NJ ~, set .,.n on is pe.h IA S,ue. 70
on thnr nor-n h;ns on ';nss anJ ~ -, Al
crmcn Pnrlv and ee an. nnmo 'V. onHpo " Ne
he msr;ct 4t,u. % P ., 40 inns
,ycra lac ed ,h.ra a. 81 nrs n.!,,nbs ~
uer. bnJ ~ a., ~, pu, pos as tney
Another charrc IS Ia, The connesti them i,h To,
in &C.. 90 -, - , $3.50! u o e 'e"' " IN r. nm,
points il is for YOU to mus, nut such consrc
nj AS To akct he doc
men YOU will read il over and see for Yourselves
[Mr. Graham dcmurred unless the whole of the papers
were scnt.l To whom does this libel apply [The Judge
then read from the Commercial and commentci.l Now,
gentlemen did they intend say the plan the
Aldermen Purdy and Lee in making this charge. That Is
the point !. is for you construe the paper and say
lit is libel not. If ii remains be if there is
any other defence that will avail them, if the charge is
true The FIRST ground s there are certain occasions when
persons allowed to the merits OF elective o
GERS and the persons annually elected continually be-
lore the people In this case do not perceive that the de-
fence ,has point The Court then gave preccdents to
show that officers when elected entitled protecton
hold that persons making false charges against elective
officers in the columns of Gazette responsible In
all cases the intention IS TO be taken INTO view, whether
nance is evident or otherwise: The Court then alluded
pulpit in aehurch in England The party alluded to was
present and brought an action Tor libel but was held
ly read for ilustration.l
Here he read from Starke on Evidence, p.sS0
feet the particular mischief: and as in all other cases
what he incndsmust be inferred from what he does If
nothing appear from which the intention to be collected
except the public Of the libel itself unexplained by
any context CT circumsanccsf the very terms of the
document itself tend to scandalze degrade and the
individual the intention the part of the defendant
effect these objects must necessarily be inferred without
the aid of any extrnsc proof.
1.-The defendant may in his turn rebut the inference of
malice by evidence 49, and give in evidence any cir
cumsances (which show that what he did done in
the fair and honest discharge of any duty society SC
sc.
Now on thi, noln, cer,an,v think tho District Attorney
is correct THAT in The absence of ali other tesmon 10
tho contrarv NV th;s no;nt ~ 49, - ;vht 20 II; a.
malice from The fasebood If tbs r, Z ,rme Ia
the defendant NAV give in evidence ,es,;monv 70 reb
the PRESUMPTION OF malice Int falling 10 do nj, III ma
lice must he in frred IN the otbcr ba,J the deindans
counsel are right tb., tbs S,c,. r ro, and tbo in
ference thougb wrono one ~. fair, Jravn IN, tbm
hes protccteJ from The ~ the he Now
the question here then is dis the fairly drawn
or thus YOU are 70 Judge and decide mpartaily IL Won
consider The facts 70 n5o,sd No on.i"man h.ro,sa
distinction between libel, uttered on publc men and pr
vste Ana though don't hold that public man is cnt
tied 10 the same nro.cction that man s vol The
conduct of ali pubc officers eec,ye and ,vbo are cand