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

but actually, and would have been present TO res
pond to it if he had deemed it susceptible of de-
fence As a lawyer, We suppose this was nght;
but. as an Editor and man, we could not have
done it.
Richard closed with some general reprehension
of Hbels and SANDERS, which only remember
were forcible, and weuld have been weighty II APP
plicabe to this case put in the articles or parts
of articles alleged be belous, with our null adj
mission of publications likewise his letter demand
ing retraction from Us, also admitted; with ad-
missions of every thing else he had asked OF US
rendering all ether testimony unnecessary to these
points. He did not snd of course need not under
the law of libel, offer to prove otherwise any pur-
pose on our part to iniure the plaintiff any prooe
bic motive for so doing, or any damage sustained
by him. but here rested his case, and gave way to
H. GREELEY, in Defence:
| IF the Court please
| stand before you the person charged with
| libel in this case, to answer to that charge am
the Editor of the Tribune and published therein
the articles on which this prosecution is founded.
NV partner Mr.. McElrath, though legally on trial
before you, is not Editor and had no knowledge OF
these articles till he read them, as did others, In
the printed paper. He, at least, is gutess ot all
actual malice in the premises, though he must share
with me in your verdict.
My Defence as you will have Inferred, Is not
that did no, publish the articles complained OF,
since have fully and cheerfully admitted that
| did, but that published them without malice to-
ward or intent to wrong MIR. Cooper, and that
those passages complained of as belous are not
ibels but honest even if mistaken infeIcnces
drawn from what believed to be facts, which es-
scntiay were so,-and no farther preJudlclal to
Mr.. Cooper than they were sustained and fortified
thereby. What are those facts On the 18th OF
November, 1S4l suit for libel-oAe of an as
sortmenr--brought by ]. Fenimore Cooper against
Thurlow Weed was called for trial at the Mont
gomery Circuit at Fonda-that being the first day
of the term Mr.. Weed not appearing, it was
postponed 10 the next day, when it was tried
still in the absence of Mr.. Weed or of any de-
| fence and verdict given for the plantif-dam-
ages $500 Hereupon a friend at Fonda wrote me
letter detailing the facts in the and the CIR
cumstances under which it had been tried, which
published, and on this letter the first count IN the
declaration against me is based. The whee letter,
which was published word for werd as it reached
me is embodied in the declaration against me, and
copy of The Tribune containing it is herewith
submitted. See declaration above.
few DAYS afterward, card from Mr. Cooper
in relation to the above letter appeared in the AL
bany Argus This card is as follows'
"Fram the Albany Argus.
"The New.York Tribune and Albany Evening Journal,
having both published false statements concerning the pro-
against Thurlow Weed. the late Montgomery Circuit
ask room for the following statement OF facts ~.
"The first noticed for trial in May last MI
Weed then appeared Without COUNSEL and asked for delay
the plea lta, he had forgotten that tie cause had been no
plea saying the time that the application was exceed
ingly feeble. ,,.
At The late Circuit appeared the first day. and Mr.
Weed did not The Evening Journal says, "Ceoper'S
cause agains. stood nearly the foot OF the calendar
business until the last of the week" number hir
teen calendar Of forty and was REACHED the first day
The % Th urY ai e os
was called we merely said we were ready and wnen the
disposition child the Court distinctly refused to gran
dsa such i s dsv 10 e ~
be trick An appeal was then made personally to my
self and consented to delay until The cars should o
my counsel openly expressed in Court and at momeft
myself. II vas clearly expressed by me at the Tune Of
granting this delay and as clearly asserted To ny rsaca
behalf OF Mr. Weed hat was 70 ae ~ ngpes IN. .e
Mr. Sacia had openly stated on The authority OF FIJI weed
and coming from Mr.. Weed that Mr. H!, lawyer OF
merit was appear for the defendants but at tbe time
when this statement made person OF respectablIy
informed that he confident that Mr. Hill had TO such
intention The cause lay over Tor twenty-lonr hours
1.-THE next day trains arrived from Albany, with in
ervals of three hours, before the cause was ove
by Neither Mr.. Weed nor Mr.. Hill had arrived Imey
say here that the did attend the Circuit AT all
Mr. asked for farther delay; the Court answered.
would grant delay without consent OF parties then
stated left the with the Court and that had DO
the The result. Inquest, and YER
diat OF $500.
alt remains only say that Mr. Weed had pleaded the
general issue without notice. OF course he could not jus
is We held bis full admission of publication &C. anu OF
he totally without defence These facts were
stated by the Judge the Jury why the deien
aaat's rights could materially suffer by taking the
quest, The attorneys on record for Mr. Weed are Me,sr,
Parnaee and Loverdge, OF the city of Albany Neither
OF gentlemen has appeared in this Fonda
nor any affidavit, founded bearsay offered
~ have directed legal proceedings 70 be scmmenSe,
| y FENiMoRE COOPER"
This Card asked for no reparation and seemed
to desire none at my hands. Ii declared without
qualification that the writer had directed the com.
| mencement of prosecution against me. there
fore awaited the missive of Mr.. Richard Cooper,
now in evidence before you, which seemed to be
dictated by different spirit, though its demands
were unreasonable. But, inferrng from this that
The attorney at least preferred Justice to Law,
Immediately published MIR. Fenimore Cooper's
Card above gwen as the readies, ard fullest re-
paration | could make, and accompanied il BY the
following comment, which s based the second
| count in the declaration against me:
s.Hgr, ,. Fenimore Cooper.
"lnstead OF the grace which we have Tor The last two
days been quietly expecting from gentleman, re-
ceived yesterday very and civil though al
together reasonable letter from his COUNSEL M T. Cooper
in relation our obnoxious publication w should be
happy publish this letter. but considering that IS
OF business and be regarded by the writer phi
va,e one shall take the liberty doing Suffice
it, then, that very cviIy calls for 'reifaction OF
what said moi by but by Fonda correspondent
consisting OF of the circumstances attending the
taking the inquest in The Of Cooper Weed and
comments thereon. Hsw shall! we be required reract
what anotAer has stated: and how retract the en- |
when the greater part sustained by
Mr. Cooper's version OF the matter! Finally,