The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-04-05
Superior Court.
RpfOrs. IudOn nak Law

APRIL 4.-Wiiiam b MoGat Lucius S. Comstock.-
Of patent medicine and each publish paper to puff it.
The SANDER complained OF appeared in paper called the
United States Advertiser published by the defendant and
is in substance follows -" John oiat published his
dastardly attack in the name Of William b. Mofat
who is not to be found in the country but who IS now
among the missing" The declaration contained four
counts, each count putting different meaning on the
libel; the first count stating that it meant Mr. Mofat lett
left it for improper purposes; and the third that he had
left his business and the fourth stated some other won
derful thing which we don't remember lhe libel was
put in, and admitted
JOHN NJ QuAcKENsoss was sworn and examined.-Is
brother-in.law William b. NIofat the plaintiff Plaintiff
engaged in manufacturing MoIats great life pills; the
business become very extensive and was so on the ID
of June last. His place OF business was 325 Broadway
rhe paper in which the libel was published extensively
crcnlated circulated through defendants customers
and through the mail
Cross examined by JoRoAN-Was married in October,
st2 connected with Mofat in the business; first
became acquainted with William Is Moist in the spring
Of 1912; witness knew Of Moats being in business year
for having knowledge Of the circulation OF the
paper. from being in the employ OF William D.
Mofat Mr. Mofat went to Europe in October lsla ana
returned il August, lsas; There is paper pub,
lished in Motiat's establishment. called the Good
Samaritan. Here the Samaritan was handed to witness
Way, 1881. The witness in reply to MIR. Jordan cont
nued say that he got list Of COmsocks customers from
man named Henry j. Drew, who lives in Jersey. Wit
was his swn offer TO make it out: witness thinks ne
gave him $40 for IT. did not know the list was stolen from
-
COmsOcks clerks; 1t is part Of our system to make
agents. AMI by that list made good many agents. thai
Of objects in getting it; witness called at Com
stocks and found that he had counterfeit pills which
he designated Mofats Life Pills and told him he was
selling them; went there to they were genuine and
found they not and said he must stop seleg them
this was before advertised Dr. Comstock the next OBJ
ect witness had in getting the list was to inform Com
stocks customers that the pills he sold were counterfeit
This was the substance Of this witness testimony;
Mr. JORDAN behalf ofhe defendant shortly addressed
the Jury. He said il isan oldlsayng and true one that
of a trade never agrees the parties were both ma
nufacturers of pills. and occasionally crossed each others
path; they both had papers under their control, and
abused each other whenever 1t suited their convenience
His present object to show that there was nothing in
the libel complained of refectag on the plaintiff Mr.
Jordan in continuation said that where two meanings
might be attached to publication one culpable and
the other innocent, a Jury were bound to attach
the Innocent meaning to It, and - was .,. .ne e.,
tended to nsnuate that William Mofat left the country
with intent to secret himself from his creditors.
Mr.. JORDAN proceeding to read Mr. Mofats paper
Mr.. inerposed, the ground that libel writ.
by third party defendant no ground for de-
PENDANT to libel plaintiff.
The CouRr overruled the objection and allowed the ju
ry take counsel from the Good Samaritan in their de-
alterations.
After Mr.. JORDAN had done reading volume OF puff
a nd libels, the case was rested
His HONOR then charged the jury lie said It was neces
sary for them to find whether the passages in the libel
were meant in dubious innocent sense, and the only
way they could come it to read the libel and then
say in what they themselves would understand il
if 1t only meant that Mr. Moa left the country and would
return home why then il is libel but you to
contrary sense to that and that it meant he went abroad
for any improper purpose the libel is supported There
specific evidence before to support those words
and it is for you to consider whether they were used in
some injurious attributed to them by the
dec iaration.
The jury after an hours elaboration rendered verdc'
for defendant Mr. Seldom for Plaintf-Mr Jordan Tor
The Court then adjourned to Saturday.