New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-08-07

llf tllef Justice spencer tler fr-Oc4ar
period Of more than forty years gone by the rule ~
-esird 20 what words published amounted 10 a libel mad
been greatly extended and unJusiy 90 The ceunlul n
complained " said 10 have been submitted by ne
aie Gen Hamilton and adopted by The Court IN the case
oi The People, '. Cromwell John. Css. 354 and ap-
proved hy this Court n Steel, y. SOuiawick. John.
2iJ. The Court IN The last case say mat
a writing published malicousy, with view 10 e. pos
rersun 10 contempt aud ndicrle is undoubtedly ac'n
beand wha said u lbs elect by The Judges Of tn
C. b. IN Vef-, Mostly wis 4o,j isiOunded IN law JUS
'uce and sound policy
The ouinou Of the Court in the case e Riggs v Den
n--on g John Gas 205 10 the same effect; and the
definition OF libel given by Mr.. Hamilton IN the case
Of The People v CrOswei % John, Gas $50 j. drawr
with the utmost precision. u is oeRs0r0as or rid.
caia0 uriiag yifrre sign Bade nth f.isctjrcfs
nal anus infant foUGrds GOUnHent mag sfycs ar md
rdnqis To allow tho press - be- the ac.e Of mall
ridcu'e Of private character would dcprsve
TIE moral taie Of the community ana render the state OF
society miserable and haIbarcus In the Of Crop
'. Ii'ney, 3 Salk 226, lIot Ch J. said,
"Scaniaou. matter j. not necessary 70 mike ieL J.
- cnonh II the dendan induce az III opnor 70 he haa o.
en s'an1ef ihon4h Tcrcg e"amg 70 .enrtr ne Iaf'g
sstec 10 dsgro ridee or contenpi sci enable though
10 oonOl fayaS anydefal cr9ie punishable 10 Inc temporal
courts" lCMuy, EaiL Of Black Comm Vol l., cA -
Il was said On the argument that
Adopting Hamilion's definition. il would not embrace
the present libel II is not ccnf0rious rdcnng
wiring Il resets upon the planih certainly bli
verey consciously. While il neither Affects nor beiays
any sentiment Of rdicu.e"
Ifhe counse's admission that the imputed libel are
fleets upon the plaintiff although not severely may be
taken evidence Of the law. il strikes that he ba
surrendered the point The degree Of ccn.ure or ridi
cue contained in the writing is pan Of the definition
censoriOus rdiculing writing toward an individ
ua is defined 10 be libel ii made with mischieyous
and malicious intent" CcnsOrOusness il defined by
Walker 10 be disposition TO blame and condemn -
the habit Of censurRg reproaching; and 10 IRE
1ecf" IN the 5h subd Of his definitions the same
author defines il 10 De f0 Jri1g rcDr00ci0 rcec'
m fp ~
ccnsOriOu5 writing, made with nischievous and ma
lici0us intent toward individual j. lDcous-'hat
writing made with Ike intont rlfc1faP upon an indi
yidual although more or less would be more Or
less hbeous But do no, think the rule requires any
such sid. is enough for me that approve OF the rul,
settled acted upon and undcvaingy adhered 20 iof
the last forty years by ilis Court
But il is objected that the inuendo is not justified By
the language Oh the writing. However that may be, II
perhaps is unnecessary here TO inquire as if bad II
could only be reached by special demurrer. The
proper Office Of inucndO is 10 apply the libel 10 the
precedent matter but cannot be used TO add enlarge
extend change the Of the previous words. And
when the matter stated in the nucndO Is not neccs
smy support the action II may be rejected as surplus
age II Chfy pl Days ed. 3-2; and so when II II at
tempted by nucndO 10 enlarge the sense II the words
- Danes Abi. Of the Am Law SOC; Thomas Y. Cros
well John. X. go; Roberts v Camden 3 East. s3
An inuendO may explain the meaning OF the wofds-a
though il cannot cniargc wiihOut the aid Of "a colo
quinn and leading his point is whore in AN
action for SANDER the words were: he has burnt my
barn and hed maj the plhlII cNull not why
Of luondO my barn full OF corn But II III the IN
PRODUCTION Of The count there had been aveTmcni that
the defendant had barn full Of corn, and tina, in dis
course about the defendant spoke the words An IN
uendo he meant by his words the barn full OF corn
would have been good. In such the inuendo would
explain and apply the preceding parts Of the dccara
ion by showing the defendants words were uttered in
conversation about the defendants barn full Of corn
In Van Ncch'en Y. Hopkins5 John. r. 226 Van Ness
J. explains the inuends Oi an ayermcnt OF colOqui
um and inuondo. The GrTncn IL 10 ascertain that
to the count which Is doubully expressed and to add
make doubtful things clear coR0quipna shows
he words were spoken in reference the matter of the
averment and II an RHcVd0 is explanatory OF the sub
Jet matter sufficiently expressed before. The svermen
Of extrnsc matter in this count was for the purpose OF
showing that the libel was published, as II expressly
alleged have been of and concerning the plaintiff
An iauondo is averment that such one means such
particular pcrs0H-or Inst such thing means such
particular uiHg and coupled with the Introductory mat
is avcmen, Of the whole connected proposition
By which the cognzuce OF the charge will be submitted
the jury. and the Of action appear 20 the court
The explanation intended TO be given By the iaueHdo
here. of the words,
"No, in Osego (meanng the county OF Osego) for he
imeauing The ssd pam 10 known there tthereoy mean
IN The county of Osego was IN bad Teue there and wou
not io that reason Ike TO brng suit !or hoel IN SAID
county of Oi-c-o,D
Il seems TO me is not liable 20 the objection that en-
irec adds extends changes the sense Of the previ
words and whether the alleged libel was published
II aud concerning the plaintiff AID the true meaning Of
he words is all, scd by the aycImcnt and inucn
10 not question OF fact which is the province ~
The Jury and not Of the Court 10 decide John. Rep
~ Goodrich - Wocou, 3 Cow 53l; Pcake v Old
nam Conpor Rep. 1928; 81 Rep. 96l Denlcr v Ia
Der, 70 John 90. II is wei settled that where the Sian
dorous charge may be collected from the words them
selves tho general scope OF the publication II
no; necessary make any evemen as to circumstances
10 the supposed existence Of which the words refer
So when the hbeOus meaning Is apparent on the lace OF
the declaration nuendOes and avermens are unncccssa
y but if introduced and not warranted by the suiec
matter, they may he rejected as surpusase Crosweh v
Weed and others. y Wcnd 62l
ii is made objection that the pleader after adopting
the word rtpatc extends il 20 mean rpraii0a but The
counsel made no attempt as remember. 10 point out
the difference between the definitions Of the two words
and unless the distinguished American leNcosapher has
committed in tha. particular, the pcader IN this
case has not been guilty a. supposed The words rpf-
1'1H fn1 rpufc when used as suggested, convey the
idea.
Il Wa insisted in behalf Of he defendants that
der publication acuonahle. IL must be " dfgmaiory
by this IS mCani the words must import orat (and
the connection In which ihc term was used am una
bile 10 discover what else mcant) have no hcsiia
tion 20 say that It never extendcdto libel IN This
state and has been in England for the last one hun
bred and fifty years. The hrs action for libel found
in our books OF reports that Of Riggs Dennision
John Cas- l9s decided IN lsO2. The late Chancellor
Kent then one Of the Judges of this Court in delivering
the opinion of the Cour; observed that the charges
against the plaintiff clearly hbe.ous. because they
threw contuncly and oGium upon him in his character
Commissioner Of Bankruptcy. instead Of holding
actiOnable az suhjccins the Il4ntln 70 me loss OF
hs ices And such has been the doctrine Of this Court
To this time In Van Ness v Hamilton, 10 John Rep.
Chief Justice Spencer said
at may however be observed IN The outset that there eS
isis adecde2 ncii0a bcsgccH ord pol On and ~ TIN s4af-
Der To maintain action ia the forne CAUSE, t' " ofds
must either have produced mporary loss 10 me PLAIN
m hv reason OF special damage susia1 td from their being
sncken or they convey charge Of some act criminal
I'm itself and ndctab.e SUCH AMI suiecug te party 10
an infamous ruli.hueaf, they must nptr some lndct
able offence involving mOrs "a piide To MAINTAIN an ac-
ton for alijei : necessary A AL indcae offence
should be imputed iO tie paluuh y lltc hoes foiy
VI q pubic scor, contempt and rfcer, 4 " Of onaSls
4, is insisted by the defendants counsel that IN The
carly stages OF The law Of libel there was no distinction
between verbal aud written SANDER that no aclon
could then have been maintained for any words written
or which AN action could not be manisnotN they were
spoken-Srd the case OF Ihomly '. Merry l. Taunton
3aS decided in the Exchcqucr Chamber. lc4-~ among
others TO sustain that position has been cited by counsel
The action in that for libel which cnargedtAe
plaintiff Kerry with being hyPOTRs. ana with ha'mS
ned tie cloak ~ rgi0A for EREor;ty PsrP0sts Merry
obtained verdict agains, Th0rny and had Judgment IN
he Kings Bench without augmentation which "rlt
of error was brought in the ExChequer Chamber and
aiFnnci--Sir j. Mansfield. Oh. j, in delivering the
,oinon OF the Court satsa that the words, had they
merely been spoken. would not have been acuonah.e
ad while he expressly repaiaied the distinction wnch
he admitted had prevailed for more than century past
between written and spoken scsnds.yei as The RUE o.