The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-05-16
Supreme. Court.
ReforA a fftIl Ranch

Before full Bench
May io:-7James Fsnimore Cooper vs. Greeley 4 Nc;
Erah-This was action Of libel brought up from the
Courts below on demurrer. The has been argued
by Governor Seward and concluded this day. The al
legged libel was published in the Tribune dated Noyem
Der 20, lsfl as follows:
At all events having published the letter excepted
matter of intelligence without any feeling
toward Mr. Cooper but as his conduct in the case
seemed to excite we have at ali times stood ready TO
publish cheerfuy any correction contation he might
choose to send u.s. He chooses to send none but suit
for libel instead. So be II then-Walk In MIR Sheriff
"There is comfort sustain under this terrible
dispensaton MIR. Cooper will have to bring his ac-
ton to trial somewhere. He will not like to bring in
New York for We are known here. Nor in Otsego for
he is known there"
The second alleged libel went as follows:-
Knowing what positively did and do of the severe
illness Of the wife Of Mr. weed and the dangerous state
Of bis eldest daughter at the time Of the Fonda trials
question-regarding them as we dothe jokes attempted
to be cut by Fenimore their condtionhis talk of
the story growing up from girl to the mother and
three or four daughers-his fun about their probably
having the Asiatc cholera among them or some other
contagious disease, &C. &c. however may have sound
ed to others, did seem to us rather nhuAao there =!
We had like to put our foot right into it again, after all
our tuition We mean to say that, considering that just
the day before Mr. Weed had been choked by his coun
sci in surrenderng at discretion to Fenmoe being
sured by said counsel that the law is cxpoundcd
and administered by the Supreme Court, he had no
earthly choice but to bow his neck to the yoke pay all
that might be claimed of him. and publish Whatever hui
initiation should be required else prepare to be imme
dacy ruined by the suits which fcnimore aud Richard
had already commenced or getting ready for him.
considering all this, and how much MIR eed had paid
and must pay towards his subsistence-how kcenly w
has had to smart for speaking his mind of himwe did
not think that Fenmores talk at this time and place Of
Weeds family and Of Weed himself so paltry
that he would pretend to sickness in his family al an e
cusc to keep away from Court and trick after
trick to put of his for day twoi seemed to us
considering the present relations ofthe parties,
gen There we go again !"
The third alleged libel was in the following words -
Fenimore clo ed veiy effectively with appeal ior
and amy-his grown up daughters often suffused in
tears by THESE attacks on their father Some said this
was was mawkis but we considered !. good and think it
were crying for but wont state It, lest Their dose
Of Supreme Court Law be administered to u.s."
The defendants put in several pleas in relation to
the first alleged libel aver that plaintiff ON 18th Nov
ls4l. caused to be printed in Albany Argus notice
mcnts that said words published by them were in reply
to and commenting on said notice. that plaintiff for ten
~ and had the reputation there Of proud cautious e
man. wherefore he in bad repute; thatby means Of
plaintiff being in such bad ropute there, plaintiff would
not like and did not like to bring action against defend
ants for words, &c, in county of Otscgo They also
aver In relation to the second alleged libel that plaintiff
PENDANTS editors &C. and constituted part of
an article giving account of Plaintiff against de-
and that such Trial plaintiff in presence of Judge
willard &C. spoke words as described; that at the time
Of such trial Weeds wife and children were SICK not Of
Cholera &C., and that Weed was in consequence detain
to said speaking plaintiff had brought three actions
against all-in Of which (Weed defcndan plaintiff
recovered $50 on sOth April lS4a in another against all
Ss7 on 4th September ls42 another noticed for trial
above; that plaintiff had LIST December, ls4l sued
out three wrts against Weed White &c. all prosecuted
by r. Cooper, attorney &c. who had them in his posses
Hammond, counsel for Weed, who insisted that Weed
should compromise, &c who did submit matters between
publish what no should drcct all which was known to
plaintiff when he addressed jury &c; wherefore de-
PENDANTS published. To the third alleged libel defendants
aver that plaintiff ought not to maintain action &c. be-
cause they say that defendants editors &C." and
aver that at Circuit Court 9th December 1872 at Ball
ston spa in suit between them plaintiff addressed Ju-
ry, and did say words Ito effect as Charged and
defendants published true account That it is not true
that family suused in tears for reasons stated by
plaintiff but say that before that time PLAINTIFF had COM
mcnccd various actions frivolous grounds on LIST Ju.
ly, $780, procured Indictment against j. W. wobS.on
4; WeedIon LIST December, 1912, two against Weed,
White = Hoffman, and one against Hoffman White;
against woodland these things being known &C. plain.
tim fell into dsesteom, &cand these proceedings and
jury known to his wife and family -and his wife and
and family for this greved a. well
they might; wherefore defendants published.
Plaintiff demurs to the different pleas on the following
grounds In relation the pleas to the first alleged
libel the grounds of demurrer stated that the matters
therein are not Justification Of wsrds in first count
Plea does not specify any acts facts which show that
plaintiff was ever justly held in bad rcpute The aver
mens in regard to reputation of plaintiff are improper
and insufficient to show that it was bad Not certain
that reputation as alleged consequence of his be-
stantiay alleged libel that plaintiff was in bad repute
and that such was consequence of his being known
The causes Of demurrer the second alleged libel sets
forth generally that the matters in the pleas do show
Justification nor specify the several matters intended as
Justification; and that Of the pleas establish other
charges against the plaintiff than those in the libel The
grounds OF demurrer to state that Of the pleas
were informal and repugnant after avcrring suits &c.
without averrng attorney &c. refers to said suits which
plaintiff and his attorney had already After
averrng, all of which was known to plaintiff does not
state what facts he intended to aver known to
In relation to the third alleged libel the causes Of de-
murrer set forth that the plea processes to part
ony Of words in "a count and is not justification Of
ious words which the plea processes to justify and from
other portions oil publication in I'd count that defendants
IN charging plaintiff with being the Of affection
&C., did not or refer to matters forth in plea and
that reader would not understand charge II does
were known to vito, Sc, at the time when they wep
&C. but the time IL averTed to be the day plaintiff ad
dressed the Jury after the alleged sufcrngs The aver
ments that suits and capiases rested unjust and fIivo
lous grounds, and for pretended lbellous words are
vague and uncertain and plea should stated facts
which made them So The acts of plaintiff alleged in
plea are not sufficient for suffering &C. ana aver.
mens OF the al opinions Of others do not the CHARGE
and also acts of plaintiff can not make mpuato of
them bellous The plea does not sufficiently designate
persons intended by family ofplaintin
Gov. SEWARD argued the at considerable length
on part OF the defendants and cited several authorities
which defined tho character of libel at considerable
length The Court was crowded to excess, when the
case concluded on argument
The decision WILDE gwen at the end Of the term.
Common Pleas.
Before Judge lngraham.
MAY l5-LibeL-Dacid N. Maggie Lepi D. Slamm.-
This was an action to damages for libel which
was published in the late Pebsan newspaper on the 10Th
October ls4 rejecting upon the character Of the plain
hd The article was headed Horace Greeley and Thur
low Weed ilsh Mssionary paid by the Wing Central Com.
citizens look for the iorme, David
NJ Maggie" The article proceeds state that several
years ago. whom the Irish pcasantry by
the 1.-THE system, and ground down by their landlords
and the minions Of the British Government tho White
boys" under Captain Rock" would have succeeded
IN throwing on their shsckes had not Nagle the spy"
oined them, and betrayed them and thus went to Dub
lin Castle and informed against them selling them to
tho vlilainous Major Srrn and his equally notorious
friend, Swain" Several Of the poor coniding Irish
were subsequently, prosecuted by the informer Maggie
and were ransported-somc TO Botany Bay The article
went to state that the plaintiff was obliged to fee to
this country and sold himself to the wings.
The plaintiff brought tho action alleging that this