The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-05-17
CHARGE OF JUDGE KENT
Trial Of Stone for Libel.

livered yesterday morning to the Jury in the libel
case against VIM. l.. Stone.
There was tremendous crowd-a tremendous
northumberland tremendous expectation of
something Col. Stone was there as cool as you
please. Ketchum, Graham, and the District At
torney, were all present.
The charge of Judge Kent ia curious snd
| unique document. Twas sometimes rather favor
able TO Col Stone-sometimes rather against him
sometimes neithcr-sometimes both-and always
very clever and pretty we'll balanced The Judge
denies that he was pledged to mprison Very we'll
be it 30. The counsel on both sides took excep-
tons to the Judge charge.
Judge Kent was an hour and quarter in its deli
very--from 20 minutes to II O'Clock till near IL
O'Clock. The Jury then went out-and the crowd
began to speculate on the verdict
Court OF Oyer and TcrmIner.
MAY l6, 1872
IN THE CASE OF WM. L. STONE, INDICTED FOR
LBEL.-The Court room this morning was as
crowded with spectators, to hear Judge Kent's
charge to the Jury, in this libel case as was on any
day during the exciting trial of John c. Colt for the
murder of Samuel Adams. Every scat was occu-
pied, and many were standing outside the door try
ing to get theirhcad in to hear what the Judge was
saying AT 70 minutes to II the Judge and Alder
men came into Court and the crer having made
proclamation the clerk called over the names of
the jury, who having answered. Judge Kent rose
and said
GENTLEMEN OF THE Juar A day of calm ana quiet
Lotto, ..-A.-
the exciting eoqucnce OF the Counsel who have address
ed you in this case and the charge which is my duty to
deliver This case, as you will have perceived, gem
tiemen, from the current of testimony that has been
laid before you, places the Circuit Judge in 4 very
peculiar situation. You will have perceived from
that testimony that an application hal been made
some time anterior to the ement of the trial
to have this removed another Court or at all
events that another Judge qualified by law sit in this
Court. should have presided in my place. Governed
however by mature consideration and reflection iclt
self impced upon that reelection by the impulses
of my duty to retain my seat on this trial. Had l. how
ger, been aware how inextricaby my conduct the
trial Of James Gordon Bennett won have Ell up
in this case should have certainly called in the aid of
another Judge competent by his experience in the law 10
try this In reference, however, this the Jury
will understand the and there are certain
matters both intrinsic and cxtrinsic, which are in.
separable from of this nature, which leave
but little for the Judge to perform and necessarily con-
fine him to walk the narrow path OF judicial duty, without
swerving line to the right the left from the direct
and plain path which is marked out for him to pursue
and am, however, relieved from much of that anxiety
which otherwise would Cypress me, by the unlimited
power which the Jury possess and by which power
of the Court is pared down almost nothing Gentle
men OF the Jury in ordinary circumstances you have the
power merely to decide the facts which occur to
say according to the evidence, whether such things
Cured not and the law is laid down By the Court
have to determine what laws apply to the
In civil case this is the duty of tho Jury, and if
laid down by the cour the Iaw will se that aaw ve as
dict aside This the also in all criminal cases cx
cep those libel the law is laid down by the Court and
the Jury merely the Judges of the facts is true that
in criminal the Jury exercise their power to
bring in verdict of not guilty and dispute
call in question that verdict But lawyers will tell you
that though ures have this power. it is not because il is
right but more privilege But, gentlemen, in
ofbe the jures unquestionably the judges both
the law well as the fact 1t set down by the high
est authority, and it is question OF great nicely in
this nature. Gentlemen is provided in the coUstr
ton of this country that every citizen may freely speak,
write or publish his opinions on any subject he may
choose and none hinder him from doing-:his is in
that part ofhe constitution called the Bill of Rghsand
in all prosecutions indictments for libel he may addncc
the truth in justification Of the alleged libel ALSO
that the publication made from good and JUS
tifable ends (The Judge here said my remarks may
Jury may wish themselves they seated at
any time they pease) Now, gentlemen of the Jury
struggles and labours and exertions of great and
distinguished men of past ages and as most of the
provisions of that bill strike their roots far back into
past ages in the struggle for liberty, and this pro-
vision, although not extending far back, is iden-
tilted with the struggles Of patriotic and great for
the supremacy of the laws it will be well to
few words in explanation Of it. have already
told you Gentlemen Of the Jury, that you are the
judges in this case both of the law and the fact,
and as this originated, as most of our laws do in
England will refer 10 the long struggle from which ii
dates its rise. The origin Of the struggle was this
The. Jury formerly judges of the fact and the
court laid down the law applicable to the fthe
show that there reasonhat libel appeared the
fact OF the writing publication Of the alleged
be libellons and the court laid down the law whether
was libel or not On this question the struggle in
England 1t commenced far back the reign of the
Tudors with the establishment of the Chamber and
and as aproecton to the subject ended ranny
the lawyers and jury struggling whether the should
maintain their privilege of laying down the Law and the
jury merely decide the fact Gentlemen in the year
there trial of very great interest the Court
of KngsiBench, at which the celebrated Lord Mansfield
presided and ON that occasion Thomas Lord Erskinc in
arguing the assumed the ground that the Jury hal
the right to decide both the law and the facts
speech Of astonishing eoqucnce and power which has
been alluded by the District Attorney his address to
the Jury On this occasion nevertheless the doctrine
laid down by Lord Mansfield that the Jury must
merely decide the facts Of the and the Court laid
down the law This case excited great attention at the
time, and in the Of few years illustrous
man, Charles James Fox introduced into the House Of
Commons Pill providing Sat the Jury should decide
tho law and the fact This Bill passed through the House
of Commons and decided that the Jury had the right
declare both the law and the fact under the direction
of the Court with reference TO the law, and declared
tina iururs could give general verdict. from this
you will perceive that jurors not restricted be-
lore enabled whether the defendant vas
guilty or not guilty and were allowed to take into con-
alteration the question of guilty not, which they
before This the declaration Of the rights of the
Jury viewed in England, and will advert /
the powers Of the Courts here In 1904 Harry Croswe
the editor OF paper here indicted for libel Pre-
sdent Jefferson and that occasion he defended by
person as eloquent ~ Erskine lawyer and illus
trious as Fox q statesman--I sllude to Alexander
Hamilton. He, too, commended that 1t the right |
of the Jury TO decide the law and the fact and |
referred back, but the Court decided against him.
had been done in England. On being carried ho~ev-
~ Mcr
on this subject. 1t however led in 1884, to act he.
ing passed by the Legislature OF this State declaring
that the jury judges both of law and the fact
and in the direction Of the Court regards the law and
allowing hedefendaut to the truth of the bcl and
cool motives us6able ends in the public alton JUS
t6c alton. You will perceive by this that had made
step in advance Of England not only as allowing the
Jury judges Of the law and the fact but also allow
ing good motives and ustfabe ends be adduced in
although il still them the law be deter