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


If the paragraph should come under our notice.
we should probably strike it out altogether, as re-
lating to e subject of no public moment, end
likely to crowd out better matter. But we 90
not see it. and in it goes Well: John Smith,
who acknowledges the corn as TO being acci-
dentally drunk and getting into the Watch-hoase'
is not willing to rest under the imputaton OF beng
hatchet-faced and having mouse-colored whiskers'
retains Mr.. Richard Cooper-for he could not do
commences an action for libel against
US. We take the best legal advice, and are told
that we must demur to the Decarauon-that Is,
go before Court without jury, where no facts can
be shown, and maintain that the matter charged
as uttered by rs is not lbelous. But Mr.. II.
Cooper meets us there and says justly: " How
is the Court to decide without evidence that this
matter is not hbelous IF it was written and
inserted for the express purpose OF rldlculing ana
bringing int contempt my client, it clearly IS IL
belous. And then to damages: My client Is
neither rich nor great man, but his character,
in his own circle, is both dear and valuable to
him. We shall be able to show on trial that he
was on the point Of contracting marriage with
the daughter of the keeper of the most tashloha-
sble and lucrative oystercellar in Orange-street,
whose nerves were so shocked at the idea OF
her intended having Ratchet face and mouse
colored whiskers,' that she tainted outright on
reading the paragraph COPIED from your paper
into the next days Sun, and was not brought
TO until whole bucket of oysters which she had
lust opened had been poured over her in hurried
mistake for water. Since then, she has frequent
relapses and shuddering, especially when my
clients name is mentioned, and utterly refuses
to see or speak Of him. The match is dead
broke, and my client loses thereby capital
home, where victuals are more plentiful and the
supply more steady than it has been his fortune
to find them for the last year or two He loses'
with all this, prospective interest in the con-
Germ, and is left utterly without business or means
of support except this suit. Besides, how can
YOU tell in the absence Of all testimony, that the
Editor was not paid TO insert this villanous de-
sscripton of my client, by some envious rival Tor
the affections of the oyster-maid, who calculates
both to crafty his spite and advance MS lately
hopeless wooing In this case, it certainly is
libel: We affirm this is the case, and you are
bound to presume that it is. The demurrer must
'be overruled.'-And so it must be. No Judge
could decide otherwise.
Now we thrown back upon dilemma
Either we must plead Justification, in which case
ne admit that our publication acas on its face a
libel; and now, woe to us if we cannot prove Mr..
Cooper's clients face as sharp and his whiskers
of the precise color as stated. A shade more or
less ruins us. For, be it known, by attempting a
Justification we have not merely admitted our Of
fence to be libel, but our plea is an aggregation
of the libel and entities the plaintiff to recover
higher and more exemplary damages. But we have
Just one chance more to plead the General Issue
to w.t. that we did not libel the said John
Smith-and go into Court prepared to show that
we had no malice toward intent to inJure Mr..
Smith, never heard Of him before, and have done
all we knew how to make him reparation-in short,
that we have done and intended nothing which
brings us fairly within the iron grasp OF the law OF
libel. But here again, while trying our best to
&C. in somehow ploo of Not Guilty, we have ac-
tually pleaded Guilty $50 says the Supreme
Court law of New. Y ork-our admitted publication
(no matter of what concerning John Smith proves
irresistibly that we hare libeled him-we are not
entitled in any way whatever to 60 to the jury win
evidence tending to show that our publication Is
not libel--or in overthrow of the legal PresumP-
tiou of malice, to show that there actually 'cds
none. All that we possibly can offer must be taken
into account merely in mitigation OF damages.
Our hide is on the fence, you see, any how Tor
though, If the Judge be kindly disposed end do
not rule and charge hard against US, we may es-
cape with moderate verdict, yet our own heavy
costs and forcibe abstraction from our business
there is no help for thenthere The heavier costs
of the other party; and, though John may come
off poorly, Richard any rate will get new SUIT
at our expense while we must wear the old white
coat another year.-Such is the beauty OF the law
of libel, as expounded and administered against
the Public Press by the Supreme Court of this
State.
But to return to Richards argument at Balls.
ton: He put very strongly agansta as the fact that
out Fonda correspondent (see Declaration above)
considered Fenimore's verdict there meagre one.
I" Gentlemen of the jury said he, see how
!" these Editors rejoice and exult when they get off
Z" with SO light verdict as $500. They consider
/" il triumph over the law and the defendant
q They don't consider that amount any thing. Ii
(" YOU mean to vindicate the laws and the cha
" racter of my client, you see you must give much
I" more than this. This was good point, but not
cutie fair. The exultation over the meagre YER
DICT was expressly in view of the fact that the
cause was undetended-that Fenimore and ms
counsel had it all their own way, evidence, arsu-
-..A... .h..n. anI Still Richard had good