New-York daily tribune., 1845-05-17

Al
Pendants me Land that ihey meant, one IiiHS
or some ether Thing: bat his oUject was 10 con
cuGe the defendants py defining one mrdnIhS ohs
-,lrpOs,, the Court render Judgment against TIE &C.
t,nGants for Whist ar. damages 10 b. rendered ior
DENYING 10 the plaintiff The generosity 81 a mtioh-
5irs or the graceS Of polished llte tngencosS o.
| observation-disclosures or The otnef these defendants
mn., have meant: bat the plaintiff, although
al liberty 10 choose, cannot ceieiTlne te-
,,.ssr ,i,sm Either VIII si,tAIn an action, he
thinks. and therefore either will 90. Like MAJOR
! Mscheath IN the BesgaIs Opera, when ms ff.t
wife appeals 10 him. " Am moi your id"iu' @ WE,
ard his newly married spouse says, ohal not
ci,Ir, ,rn,. own the MAJOR throws hand 10 each
| and sings. :. How happy could | os WIN either
PM snpoess we adopt iii- former and understand
the libel To charge The plaintiff with having ac'eG
rnceneronsly Generosity Is not duty or ilioIal
obligation We are required 20 ne jnS', NOT 10 pe
! p.nrro,S No notion VIII lie tor accusing Man OF
h.;ng deficient IN virtue that the iaw does not eS
rert q guod citizen o possess Trythe othermean-
| nv rpgput'srid,iiv The law does not expect or
rs0nire men 10 be gcEtlemany, or regard iheIi as
! such; or AT least before p!alnuH car receive ga
IMAGES for being charged wish 4 want OF gentleman
/ Ike conduct ne must aver that he ls sentetliaH
| and thIs declaration contains no Surf' GrcTSdeHf -
/ \ow s1ppo>e a chimney sweep had brought an ac-
finn on such charge, could /, have been sustain
! ed Certainly not: and yet there IS one law ara
rule of Justice for al! classes and Tor all men,
!
,s,,nca IN which II has ever been ad)udsed III this
connrry that it is lbe ous 10 deny 10 any ana every
,,a ,f, character and qualities of gentleman and
= man OF masnamlty. Then we can hereafter no
more write Of the living than otthe dead eXGep' 10
nr,iss and magnify them | leave Il TO Your iiohors
whether this would promote eltaer soou p'1"o'ieS'
! good morals or good manners.
I mass The second libel contained IN his count
which is a reaction oil the worts complained o' III
! the third count r.,,.
The Las, libel complained OF IS as follows;
Ferinorc (mcaring the said Hainun) closed very e'-
c,olv with an appcl for his character, ana ct1re oi
the suffering, OF his wifi, and .mly-hs grown up uaush
,ar fen SiTsed In tears by these attacks on e fdher
Sr,a said u is va. naval out we consider u euo U
,hnk il told We have different theory as 70 VIA e
urls were erwin. for, won't state II, lest anoheF
5se Of srrcnc Court Law be administered TO u.s. tiere,
hv nearing that the said plaintiff hy sone u"orhS anu
diseputsble uuct was The cause oil 9hicuon anu 'e's
/ in his famIly)
thus to bring the palnIifi wHs anu chu'eI 'eiose
IA, uublic Bu,itwas not the deienaaniS VINO COM
m;,tes This impropriety Ii was the palntlii num-
.If vho brought those respected l:dles before the
onb,ic and in a speech full of bitterness and re
nroach naraded them IN their sadness and sulilsed
with tears" before the jury at balstoh Spa, 10 s"ei
| = verdict b. their agony and tears
They accomplished the purpose tor when the
/ husband and father brought them upon the stasS
so uniit for their action The verdict rose IN con,
sideraiion of their greet and sorrow 10 Inc required
an,onnt-lt was paid by the defendants, ana thef
gave their report OF the trial as they lawfully mlshl
! ock at that report. and say whether II Is not eX
nrrssed with manly courtesy and dellcacy that had
| nor been deserved by the plaintiff verwas man
80 Injured more tolerant, more forbeafing III The
| EXERCISE of a iust retaliation. Aud what Is com,
complained of! Why, that the defendants said
,hev had \ different theory 10 account Tor the al
lpecd Grief Of the young ladies' Could any more
rival complaint engage the attention OF this grave
! Tribunal,
We'll if this be calumnv. who is calumnIated
IF The caunlny BE- injury, who suffers Certainly
not the plaintiff, but the ladies'.
But my adversary insists that the words are Iioel-
| lous because the defendants decline to give their
theory through fear of libel SUIT True, but the
defendants say at the same time, that. as the law s
administered the truth, however rhafmesS, isequal'
ly Gbellous with false and malicious accusations,
so lhey did not mean TO confess that thelr theeFy
would have Justly involved the consequences OF a
Ar And what is the sting found IN this harmless
leu d'eswh Tha: the defendant meant to lmpne
to the plaintiff some unworthy action or rmsconduct
whereby his wife and children were afflicted. This
inusd9 must be rejected unless II be the clear and
only legal meaning ot the words published Now
the words would bear equally well an entirely dit
ferent xplanation-May not have been some I'M
kindness of the Father, neither unworthy nor dis
reputable, that srieved his cllldren-mlsht 1t not
have been some domestic misfortune or calamity
,he publication o such theory would not have
| been lbellous and il the publication would not,
declining to publish 1t would have been innocent;
and If IL afforded any cause OF actioa the acton
would have accrued 10 the ladies' and not 10 their
| father dismiss here the consideration OF this
libel and revert to the pleas interposed TO
this count The plea 10 the ilrst OF the ilbelS IN
this count is 10 substance as follows:
Danerdants by leave. sc. say that Plaintiff ought not 10
maintain ac ion because they Defendants were
Editors &c ard the words constituted part OF an arc'e
ir an CT Plaintiffs suit against Defendants tried
AZ alston spa the 9th December, lsi2 and aver that
n such trial Plaintiff IN presence OF Judge Willard &c.
spike verbs r. ubsianally same as alleged
Defendants aver that at the time OF SUCH tra! Weeds
.jf and children wci SICK, Of Cholera &c and that
Weed wa. in consequence detained, these thugs being known
to Plaintiff. .,-.-,.,. n,.,..,<,
had broug three actions against Weed, against lio
man * White and against all-n oneo which (Weed
Deendant3 Plaintiff recovered so on 53ih Apr, lci2
in another against ALL SCI lh sept si2; another no.
;iccl or Trial Il. above that Plaintiff had on lst Dec
lsi2 sued out three wits against Weed White &c all
prosecuted by r. Cooper Attorney. SC who had them in
his possession and Showed them by Patnths direction TO
| H. Hammond Counsel for Weed, who insisted that Weed
should COMPROMISE &c who did submit matters between
him and Plaintiff D. Cady and agreed TO sign and
publish what he should direct all which was known to
Plaintiff when lie addressed jury, &c wherefore Defend
published.
DEFENDANTS ready to verify and pray Judgment.
This plea is good and sufficient because II justi
|
Counsel complains that the sums paid by Thnrlow
Weed are small and inadequate 10 justify the allie
CATION that Weed contributed essentially TO the
Plaintiffs subsistence. They may seem trlfllng
sums 10 him, but this is natural difference Of est-
mate between the party who paid and the recipl
en Again, the Plaintiff S counsel says that it is
not shown that his remarks on the ui2 al Balston
wer. imperlinent But it s shown they were wR-
tliiy faise And falsehoud is impertnent in every
action, in every Court, in every relation, and in
every place.
The plea to the last libslis in substance as fol-
| lows:
6h Plea fo. 3O--so-Deienduts by leave, &c. SOY
that Plaintiff ought not maintain action, &c because
they say that Defendants Edit rs &C. and aver that
NJ Circuit Court on 9Th December, 1872, at Bslson
Spa in suit between Paiaf addressed the Jury,
and did say words Ito effect a. charsed and De-
PENDANTS published account Defendants aver that II
is not rce that Ic family sased IN tears for reasons
stated y Plaintiff but say thar before That time Piaint!n
mad commenced various actions frivolous grounds Oh
I.t july lSlo procured Indictment against j. W Webb
on ls November 1852, commenced three actions acns
T weldon lst December. 1912, two against Weed,
White & IIofu an, and against Hoffman & White and
had on st December 1872 sued out ve capases against
Weed,-snd these things beiSg known, &C. flahuh ei
f.- 90