The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-04-24
Superior Court.
Before Judge Oakley.


| MoSpAY, April "a hesi,r,nan u.s. Cor-This was an
action the title and class Of cases now before
the Supreme Court 1t was instituted to try the right Of
opening Soth street. The corporation clerk
amined.
The jury found verdict for plaintiff subject to case
Sander Case Charles Rutland and Ma,y Rutland (his
w,ie) u.s. Charles Jet.rds and Ellen JeGords s wife,
ms was an action OF SANDER and ought
warning to laxative and gsssping women to 'put br-
Ole on their tongues and not too far ahead in running
down their neighbor, particularly when that
acter and reputation as the Of subsistence The
witness box was crowded with host ohghy fashionable
and remarkably beautiful looking ladies' who had been
summoned on both sides.
Mr. TERRY stated the case This was an action of SIAN
der brought to damages for words spoken by the
wife OF the defendant Of and concerning the wife Of
plaintiff, on the sOth December. lsia.
| The words charged in the indictment those which
are Imputed to the defendants wife, having used them
concerning Mrs. Rutland :" saw You in Mrs. Bournss
parlor with the box "a box of silver which had been
stolen on the said 3Oth Of December from Mrs Dourne
IN your hands. saw you suddenly throw down the box
and catch mp something in apron and suddenly dart
from the room. And afterwards you come tiptoe
down stairs, and act suspciously. and then Mrs
Bourne discovered that she had lost silver and for
my part. there doubt my own mind that you
have stolen them, and / will take my oath of it."
This gentlemen. is the allegation put forth in the in
dictment The circumstances in this that upon
the LIST January and the 18th February there existed
little unpleasant feeling between those two ladies' who
lived in the same house, and is unnecessary this trial
to Introduce what these difficulties Mrs Jenords
owed Mrs Rutland draft, and out of this transaction
grew this difficulty, and then Mrs. JeIords commenced
|
plaintiff in this case is a respectable man. aud Of un
blemished reputation The defendant is, ALSO respect
able but there nothing in this to justify the promuga-
ton Of foul SANDER the part of his wife against the
fame, character and reputation OF defenceless and
spectacle lady whose reputation she has sought blast
and pjure When she first called upon state what
charges she had TO make against Mrs uand she did
them and then went to the upper police and got out
warrant against this respectable woman. Mrs Rutland
was brought before the police and on investigation
once discharged In this case there something
valuable to the character than in ordinary actions OF
1 a 10.
cent and helpless woman who has two children and the
SANDER under all the circumstances was of most az.
gravaed and heinous character The damages she has
sustained after the investigation at the police Office she
would have looked and allowed the matter Drop
had she not continued systematically to Islander and
ma!ign my client by which she exhibits the wanton
malice The case, gentlemen affects the domestic and
private circles, and the morals Of society, and ask you
to look at the entire circumstances as husbands as
fathers, and to award such damages will compensate
the honor and the reputation OF injured lady for tho
| words that were spoken.
Mrs. MARY BOURNE, sworn Examined by Mr. TERRY
! know the parties; my husband is ship news cOllec
about Mrs. Rutland save what heard said BY Mrs JET.
lords on the 7th of February heard Mrs Jeforls say
that she saw Mrs Rutland in my room the box which
contained articles that stolen and her roll mp
something in her apron, and then her 20 adj.
joining room. which Mrs Rutland occuped that she
then saw her come on tptoe down stairs; then asked
Mrs Jefords il she was sure Of this, and Mrs Rutland
said she would go into any Court and provo lost
ber and the occurred in February when
my husband came home called him and Mrs. Jenords
repeated
the words spoken deliberately and in the heat
OF passion.
Counsel here put various interrogatores as to wit.
nesses impression of the motive OF Mrs Jeords which
were objected to.
Witness went with Mrs. Jefords to the Upper Police
office, when the charge was made
Counsel here asked witness relation to Mrs Ruand's
character and responsibility Objected to for defence
CouRTIWe know nothing yet to impeach Mrs.
| aulands character.
Cross-eramintd by Mr. FgrGusoN--I can't say am on
good terms with the defendant.
SNfITu RIA 4 ali, 4
have seen Mrs Jeords since tAe commencement of this
suit heard her say something this suit
you mean 60 by II TO this testimony What do
Mr. TEnnY-I mean to prove that Mrs. Jeords said she
would beat any man woman that would prove against
her on this trial. (Roars Of Iaughter)
CoURr-This is not evidence.
Mr. WILLIAM BOURNE swom.--I am clerk in the employ
OF house OF trade in this city the 7th day of Feb
Of Mrs Rutland THAT on 3Oth December as she was going
up stairs, she saw Mrs Rnland in my front room with
box In her hand and that she something in her apron
and saw her leave the room and go down stairs ptoc
and that she had doubt bnt she had the things
were solen and rea to go before justice prove
~ she said, after this happened "that Mrs. Bourne OBJ
served she lost silver understood this as
Mira rutland with the stealing.
Cross.eramn.dNIy wife lost some silver on this day
am not distinct asite the word stoen" being used per
haps the word "lost" used.
Counsel for defence moved Tor nonsut the ground
OF the only actionabe word in the Indictment namely
| stolen" not being proved.
Mr.. TERRY commended that though the exact words as
charge. according due import and meaning was made
out, 1t fully sustained the Indictment.
| CoURr-Have you any further testimony for the
direct
Mr. TrRRy We rest on this, your honor as we have
fully sustained the charge.
| CoURr.-Have you defence Mr. Ferguson
we considered this charge communication
| CouhI-A privileged communication
MIR. FERcusos--There are which I can cite in
support omy views on this case 1t concerning
hat fora
munication OF this sort action could not lie Another
case in 4th Bingham that OF Robinson McDugal also
su'tans this view Wepropose to show that there
malice in this and that she simply told the story
to further the ends Of justice Mr. r. here moved for
nonsut the grounds that the plaintiffs had
their case the express words used must be proved and
witness had not proved them
Mr.. TERRY contended that where the words were
proved suicen! to sbsanate the charge in the declaa
tion IT sustained the indictment The word stolen"
| not absolutely necessary in proof
Mr.. FERcusoS.-The general rule in action Of Islander
is that the express wordssmilar to what spoken
should be proved. The word stolen was not in eyi
dence.
Il MIR. TlRRy.-we have no further evidence
| DEFENCE.
MISS MARY H,RwrcH, a remarkably beautiful aud nte.
resting young lady of evident responsibility and highly
fashionable appearance, here called The stand and
sworn-Eyamined by Mr. FEnousosI was present at the
tod she Suspected Mrs uand and that she had rea
son for her suspicious because OF having heard something
about 1t from Mrs Jefords Miss iarwch was not cross
and gave her evid with much lady like
dor and fairness
Counr-Any further testimony for the deiencel
| Mr. FgRGusoN-No, your honor
| Mr.. TIRRY-Then the case rests.
Mr. FEReusoN addressed the jury, conending that the
slinderous words as charged proven The word
stolen the only actionabe word in the Indictment
and the witnesses fol- the prosecution had failed 10 prove
it. 1hs was privileged communication and to the in.
jured party his client has right to tell what she had
seen. Neither person property would be safe IL for
privileged communication an action for damages could
be brought against party who had felony com
mi.ted and testified thereto.
Mr. TERRY followed and dwet on the utter injury such
calculated 10 inct upon party situated in
life as his clients provided they did not get proper
protection from the laws If his client intended 10 Keep
boarding house any other busne this SANDER cal
culated to affect himself and Mrs Rusnd in every relation
In life The malice Of Mrs Jerds manifest through
out for she repeated and continued to repeat the SANDER
She still pursues the against innocent and
an injured woman and his client into court TO pro-
ec herself and ask for Justice She takes the only rene.
dy which the law LETT open for her and in any other
country such SANDER had been pronounced against