The New York herald., 1844-12-30
SuuersOr Court,

Before Jucge VanderpOeI.
Dee. % JONES r. Rogers vs.. John 1hompson-The r.
suit OF th amusing trial which has hetn loo ked to with
interest," such had been anticipated from the over
whelmng weight of evidence tor the defence.
The CeuRr charg case had gone the jury upon
the evidence Of large humber oi WITNESSES he pain
f claimed dams s for injuries done him by the pubii
ion in suit, ned Tor the jury 10 ASCERTAIN
he amount Of injury any, he had recs'ved The pub
caon Of an aru,is in newspaper Rejecting upon pi
vae character calculated to lnjufe IN his busi
ncss, l,bel-any article hoIdIng up man to rdi
cule and public oiium libeous. There was hul.
doubt but the article in question held up the piant,n
o rid,onie The words, orious hnancier, James
Rogers has retired in disgust" were strictly io.ious
The defendant however, has three modes 81 defence
hrt he ma, dsprove ths allegations set forth in the m
,icment second, he may show that all contained IN ,h
os was true and thereby justify the truth; thirdly
OF moral character There ~ well established primer
pie In law that the greater the truth the greater tn
ibel" II tie party who is brought INTO court snccseos
establishing the truth, you only muict in dama
ses You are 10 bear In mind, however, that he who
conducts public press that sentinel that watch towe
hat guards our rights and liberties has his rgats
ues while the other hand the citizen has hs righs
and must be pIo,rctei. The conductor Of pu'hc
pr has his rights expose they doing
injury to the public and such xposures do gooc
zeal VI good but then are to consider IRON the char
cter Of the testimony whether such exposures are us
fable written in bad spirIfor there must be-
Of malice to constitute the article Incl Peop
sometimes write articles in the spirit Of love and benevc
ience and men can be asq ited on the ground OF tn
truth Of the libel Libels may be conceived In hs spii.
nd in the mattors attacked the uu is set forth, tn
defendant may justly The plsintf Rogers, Is herr
charged ftst with having ruined the Northampton Bank
ans the Hamilton tank, and II you believe that he hat
mis- charge is justified From the evidence OF Keen l.
appears that ,he bank OF suspension dur
ing Rogers connection with II, and II you believe
SON such evidence that he broke the bank this
eharge Is jusfihed However, these are all matter
for you on which you are 10 exercise your olscf..
,ion you also believe he broke the Hamilton Bank th'
cha is justifd ID There was matter set out in the
csrs'ion which not touched upon by counsel a.
eher side, nam iy, the insolvency OF Inc plaintiff, viii
mat we have therefoe np'hing 20 DO HIS Homer h'r'
recaptulaed the testimony, and commented upon D..
iweng particularly on that which had been introduced
in relation to plaintiffs character, which we have pub
-lshed at length Tne Jury, after short deiibeIa io
rendered verdict Tor paintf cents damages! whici
compels the plainnn 10 pay his owD Costs
Before Chief Justice Jones'
DEc .2s.-.7isrdnd,r l. shaw vs. William Mallory The
Jury this lei sd verdict Tor the pianlf y
an action OF a.sumpsit, brought 20 recover two
quarters rent Tor part OF the house ~ franklin street
ii $3.50 per rhe lease was proved. though al ~
tempt msdo by The defendant to cont ndct the hand
gr,iDg, which aiiei. The def ndant then clsmed set
n oi xS4 which, twas alleged he lent The plaintiff On
I7n of July li'tie before the fs quarter ieil du.
witness stated he knew Of the losu was clerk Of IN
defendant at that time AMI charged IL the book III
stated, plaintiff and ds'endsnt fr quanuy borrowed aId
tent money 10 each other That note OF moran tuu
was given ON the occasion in July nor was there at any
oi their loans lar he knew That the plaintiff ent
he defendant Sl2s which ,fendant sent 10 plaintiff hy
witness who gave il to the clerk Of the paintln-,hat h.
ID TO him Tor the SIPS. This shown to have taken
place in August the amount being returned August 22d
Il also appeared by the defendants book that defendsn
loaned plaintiff $50 on the Ah OF August, which wst
mai kei paid his book, and thnt there srasu
the margin opposite charge Gnted ~ July, ~ III
place where ppd" written TO other charges
marked. also tppeared the defendant plaintiff
August 2st and sand he had the money ior III,
rent, and The plaintiffs clerk wrote receipt Tor IA,
money in defendants receipt book, which he did no
.ign The defendant a,ked him 10 sign o. and be asksd
ior the money, when dispute TO which should
first done the receipt signed the money paid III,
sendant ei and did not pay the money. lie fequent,
promised to pay Afterwards but not doing III,
,econd quarter fell du-, hs action brought
The Counsel fof defendant claimed a verdict, on N,
ground OF set Of.
rhe Counsel plaintiff insisted that the Ss4 had bee
pad and relied on IT, being loan ihnat note Va.
Confidential dealings Of the par IN suhs.q
l,ans-with the erasure On thu mfrgno Il the book al
he promises TO pay the rent suf risnt evidence
The Court cha,gsd the Jury consider all hest
-rcnmst ana II they believed u hal been pad
6ld for the plsinti for his rent II find
TheJur without leaving their seats gave a verde
fr the plaintiff, Ssi 81.
" Brewster, ior plaintiff. Horace Dresser, for d.
lendant
OFFICERS OF TBE ASSEMBLY AT the last session
oftne legislature Law was pssst reducing the compet
sson Of the ocers OF the Assembly The compensstio
oltne scrgeanta fixed at - so per diem, thsi
Of Door keeper at 81 co. and the Messengers OF Pages
30 cenis-.dibony .qrgus, Dec 20