New-York daily tribune., 1845-05-19

lReported for The Tribune.
Mr.. Cooper in closing observed that the ground
taken by defendants counsel brought them up
against living wall Of legal decisions tha, mad
heretofore been made in that Court, and which
thoroughly settled what was be hereafter regard
ed as the law of libel. He said that defendants
counsel called on their Honors 10 reverse all their
former decislors-io renoupce the error of their
ways, &c
Judge Bronson said that he did no, so understand
Mr.. Seward the la,termerely wished them to take
difereat ground from what had been taken by some
OF their predecessors, not 10 reverse any of ther
own decisions.
MIR. Cooper went on 10 say that the plea of the
defendants that The declaration was bad--and that
the matter counted on b. p!ainl was not llbelons,
was erroneous.
Judge Bronson Iii it would be bad on general
demurrer, Mr.. Cooper, thsn verdict would GER
talHly cure
MIR. Cooper was proceeding to combat this opinion
of the Judge
Judge Bronson.-If your declaration would not
be good on general demurrer, then they entitled
| TO judgment.
Mr.. Coo2cr.-Then I'm wrong.
MIR. T.. then went on 10 say that the next queS-
ton for him 10 consider was, whether there really
was anything in the declaration that would be bad
on general demurrer. He rontended there was
inuendo. He conlended that where we get al
the intent OF a party through the LANGUAGE OF his
publication, and where the article Is lbelouS, IT Is
not necessary 10 make any averment in respect TO
that inrnt But where il necessary 10 get al the
intent et the time OF publication and 10 go TO that
intent for light then such averment Is indispensa
ble But, ne INSISTED this publication complained
of is belous per Sc and therefore action would
be good on demurrer. He referred to 18th Wen.
dell, D. GIL Where an article is libelous without
81, H, hpr cd
surplussagc. Sd Stevens-Nisl Prlus-p. 2240 =
Also East p So. We did not put III the lnuenGo
because the article was not ibelOIs without sHch
inuendo but merely 10 show the party how we IN
terpreted II; avoid difficulty that occurred on
former trial, when the defendants complained that
they did not know the ground we meant 10 take-not
that there any legal weIghtn the bJecuon, butt
produced an effect. Now the words we rely on IN
this libel are these Mr.. Cooper will have 10 bring
his action to trial somewhere he Will not like To
brisg il in New York, ior we are known here; nor
in Oisego. for he is known there" They contend
that the being known Of the two parties, means
the same thing in either place that the one Is hated
because he is known; and that the other Is loved
this be not one Z" He is known there ~ and there
fore will not dare 10 sue US there What is the
reason? Because he Cooper is in bud rcpute
there Now contend that this Is all sufficient on
general demurrer II means that he has bad re-
putarion from some bad conduct
mean that he is unpopular in that place?
Mr. Cooper was proceeding TO combat this view.
Judge Bronson Bat would it be libelous 10 say
that he is unpopular In Olseso County! Does the
article mean any thing more than that
Mr. Cooysr.-Wc contend that the repue referred
to in the lnuendo is such could be used against
him on the trial Of libel suit.
Judge Bronson.-There is uotking about 'repute'
in th- words OF the article complained of.
Mr. Cooper No. Bat those words must mean
somethins-that he has been guilty of some act
which be used against hun on the trial OF libel
suit and that is the bad repute.' That's what we
contend was meant by the defendants; and that we
conended is fair construction OF the libel
Mr. Cooper then referred to the second count.
This the defendants contend was not llhelous be
cause there was no poslfve charge oil lnhunlanily
the charge is controlled by Tie context. Now Ii
this is so, then they should have pleaded the gen
eral issue and gone TO trial, and not attempted a
justification that the libel does not mean what we
aver it does mean in their formal averment. For
this contend is not the place TO Try the truth o
that averment. Again, they say that iney have
made no charge that the plaintiff brought his yar-
GUS libel suits from mercenary motives. But II VIC
take the words used above, without reference TO
the suits mentioned elsewhere, VIZ: that Mr. weed
would contribute mach 10 the support OF The
pl iutif-lhen say that The Article Is ioelous as IL
stands; il is calculated 10 degrade the iaintii-io
represent him Ia a ridiculous and odlous heh-io
represent him, in short, dependent on Weeds
bounty. But we charge that the defendant meant
what he said that we brought lhese libel suis
soriy to make money by them. The only point
therefore, on which there can be any room tor
doubt is whether these suits were libel suits
or not. We'll, the defendant has removed that
doubt ia his plea he has supplied that tact: IL
thus appears thai the suits spoken oil were lloei
sus; that the plaintiff had brought many ana that
he was going 10 bring many others, and SO on;
and this fact thus supplied by them. therefore, re-
moves al! doubt, Is Johnson, tO9) where II Is
held that if plea supplied any tact which the dec
laraton omitted to aver, t5c thatt was sufficient;
and all that was necessary 10 prove the libel lhls
same court had also charged similarly IN
another case which had not been reported, but
which h. had a manuscript copy oi-the case oil
Coonsr vs. BENJAMIN. (Here many Of the lawyers
laughed where defendant had charged that the
object of the b,l suit brought by plaintiff w:s 10
create AZ excitement III order 10 MAKE one oi Ills
books SELL Nc (Aluch lltierns)
MIR Cooper went OH 10 say that III regard 10 the
Sd paragraph in the ID count there could be 40
doubt about that Fsnlmore closed very effective,
y with an appeal for his character, and picture OF
The sutferlngs OF his wife and famly-hS grown up
daughters often suflused tears by these attacks on
their father Some said this was mawklsk, but we
considered il good and think it told. We have
different theory as to what the girls were crying tor;
but we won't state II lest another dose CT Supreme
Court Law be administered TO US Now IN re-
p,rd 10 his the defendants object that we don't
cause or theory of the girls tears But The Counsel
ordefendan can get no authority 10 sustain hun IN
that objection. Ii is enough Tor us 10 siow i'd.
rhr nnbIcarion reflects on us and the defendant
caunotb by wrapping the matter up in various 4h 4I,u,
sions get rid of The consequences OF his acts lnat
The matter which he refused TO publish Qhe theory
of The cause of the ears) was or is belouS is very
evident, froRl the fact that he woqld moi publish i
and why. because if he did publish II he knew ne
Juif judge Bronson We'll, Mr.. Cooper; but he didn't
MIS- Mr.. coopr-That q. was not necessary to make
Judge Bronsoa-But suppose m, man rs says gc an5sb en-
terrain certain opinions ut you but II net puoNsh
those opinions; for if did, ii would lay The loun-
dalion for an action for libel. -.
Mr. Cooper-Tha, does not bring ltdown 10 'he
ground OF this case. .,,,h
Judge Bronson (smillns Pretty nearli, though
Mr. Cooper, Your Honor Will excuse me.
Judge Bronson bowed very politely, ana many
lawyers made very curious iaceS -,
he would not publish for fear, Is equivalent 10 NE
H., ,t,.. ploutItf Dau Us