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

sni distinction held y Mas.aehas-its Cark v B.rney
Rict- IL, cum.
The count being held to be good in substance The next
question preserlted is
the % plea goods Il ia objected that the charge o.
bad reputation should be justified by fscfs showing -uch
reputation deserret that such charge implies in IL pop
ukF acceptaton that the party charged has done
"a NJ ~ bring himself into disrepute-aDd that plea
general he charge bad that should state fact
which i proved would make good the charge The plea
e.s up a. justification that the panuf rad the repuia
ion IN Of-eco County ~ prord. captions ceRsoroHs
1r5rory d0gnaficai malicious aiboai r,renggm and
gi0Hs man, wherefore he IN bad puie mat ~
means &C. without setting up any facts which sh0H
hat tue plaintiff had done any act D. which such reput
dcserved suppose the charge had been thar To-
plaintiff had the reputation Of having committed Poi
ocular crime apprehend that il would not be insisted
for moment By any one That plea ~ broad ~ tn
hsrce would avail the party. II would be unnecessary
10 set forth the necessary facts 10 show aim guilty Of ih
nine Of which he had acquired the reputation Oiher
qise 70 would require bot little effort the part Of tn
malicious combine snd put IN jeopardy. 81 not 70 de-
troy the reputation o. any person however pure may
be-. The general rule j. perspcuousy stated Al engtl
y spencer On. =. IN Van Ness Y. Hamilton ID John
Rep 49,
a pee in bar Of he plaintiffs action must be certain 70
lTrn. it must bee direct and positive u the facts
forth, and slate them ih 81 necessary certainty.
I'll. not correct 20 say 'ai in PIES gs,fynga libel b.
Cause the subject coHpreet d. multiplicity Of mater there
may be general pealing 90 AVOID proAAiiy
And again.
Tie ME 10 which al1ae e lid dova in ihe case Of J.
Arson Y. French Tenn Rep 10. Then ihe acfion Wa.
for libel cil~-ln- tie pallrf I'D beng connected and
concerned viii of-windler- and common norners
The plea stated hat h- ranuf had been dishonesty con
rrrned and e0lnece WITH and Wa one ora gang OF IN
oilers ard in0rmers and had Alec been guilty OF
defrandng divers persons win whom he hah dealings ana
tran-aciOns On demurrer 10 s pies was decided tnai
il bad account OF IL generally that was contrary
every rule OF pleading 10 charge NE painh Win swu-
ding without -ho" ing any a &c OF Tor Whenever one
person CHARGES another ih fraud he must know the par
cuar instances which his charge j. founded, and there
fore ought 10 disclose iIein'
10,
per- immoral criminal or oihcrwi-ei but merely in the
estimation Of the public in the county named his repus
on j. hadfhai j. bis goOdname credit or honor 6ered
fran public 0pia,Dn wa more or less lost or bad-and
the time OF the publication was held IN public csiima
Ton The charge implies arficular oct committed by
rae plaintiff Tle defendants justify the charge Of The
bad rsyufe in which the plaintiff was held hy averrn.
mt the pa'u.ir had the reputation Of being proud &c
wherefore hc IN bad repute, sc. by Thereof
be- dd not Ike 10 Try his suit IN that county think the
plea is sufficient III not do not that the subject
matter Of such defence could be- al any time set up How
il possible ia the nature Of things for the defendants
20 suroad upon paper The particular manifestations OF
price and prove that his public reputation was the
consequence Of them General good bad reputation
Of An ind ..dua j. the estimate in which it is held by
public fame where the pcrson is known.
The third pisa 10 The hfst count II the same IN sub
stance with the second. except II does not contain any
sverment that plaintiff had the reputation Of possessing
any particular traits OF character by which was held
bad but merely alleges the plaintiffs residence, Of be-
in. known thcre-aud being SO known, had acquired
bad repuie amnng citizens there residing.
This j. general than the second plea s but do
moi see but that is sufficient The plaintiff charg
GA with the doing any act. oming do any act By
which he i liable TO particular charge affecting him IN
bis character &c in any manner and Of course the rule
requiring the plea Get forth the particular acts Of the
. inii constituting the particular Thing charged j. not
applicable % this defence. The libel merely represents
the estimate which the pubic pace upon the piantll
neral character. That j. tgc not capable. generally, OF
-eug charged upon traced tie result Of any parfic
arr 90 Uf n
charccd-lt may exist without any iust foundation nut
whether i Justly uniusty formed the ground of II ].
rranifc-ily incapable Of being ut in issue and do not
tink that party is called a. 10 set forth and prove
The grounds of such public estimate oi reputation. and
much less that such public estimate was correctly made
unless the patty is charged with reputation OF being
guilty Of particular offence or the neglect Of some
duty In such the party making the charge should
be- held responsible for the truth Of the chargeand the
allegation and proof Of the reputation would not avail the
accuser.
The second count commences with the svermeni that
tue svabes inhu - followed by dash when they
the publication hereinafter set forth follows. 10
wit; iabf-," were meant and intended by the said
defendants Tor the word inhuman - and that the de
ndanis in using said syllablcs the connection
the context intended 10 convey, and did convey the
1ca that he plaintiff the occasion referred 90 IN thai
part Of the publication had acted IN an inhuman man
ncr. and also with tire avcrment that the syllabc-
uncen follow ed iy dash. follows. u wit; " an
gcn-=" when they in the said publication
were meant and intended by the defendant either for
hv using SC The sylalics last mentioned, meant and
Intended 70 convey and did convey, the idea that The
plaintiff the occasion referred 10 IN that part Of said
publication had acted either in most ungenerous or
most ungcntlemany manner and then sets out the FOL
lowing as the libel complained Of:
"Kaowing iai positively did and DO Of the severe
incss wife of Mr.. Weed, and he dangerous stale
lis eldest d gAf, ~ tr time 81 the Fonda r. ais 10 ole-
uonrcgardir them a. We do the JOKES attempted Ia De-
cat by Fen their cOuduOn lis ftk Of the story
growing up from gir the mother and three four
dams I'M
among them, ether contagious disease, sc. sc
however IL may have sounded other ears. did sound
ms rather nini--halo there had like put foo
right II s-ain. AFTER all our tuition We mean 10 -,
that considering Just the day before M Weed had beet
hOsed by s u sueuderng at discretion 70 Fen
inore; being assured by sad counsel that a. h- law
now eSpounded and administered BY he supreme Court
he had earthly choice but 10 bow M neck 20 he yoke
pay all iha; might Dee claimed of him, and publish whatever
limitation should be requfefor else prepare 20 be I'M
ard had already commenced, or were getting really Tor
lin considering all is. nil nov much Mr. Wtei hii
pend. and must pay towards h.s 'uo,s'ioe.,N h,en}
W. has had 10 smart Tor ,rasinS - hAl =" .l"e u4Y
NOT Iuk that Frrlmurr- isk a. fi- TINE and place. of
W,cds family AMI ~ Weei hinse. a. man 80 patty
that be- would pfc,ni :" .l.nes- p, l- amy a. Hn "a
to keep away from Clur. and resort 10 tca after
tncs % pui BIS case 1r day or t~o- -e med 10 IT,
considering tle present relations ~ tie paiLes mos. I'LL
gcn---t-ere we 90 again.
And also counts upon the same words n are contained
in the fret alleged As another part Of the SAID libel
and also r. alleged that another part OF the said Dc
are the following lbcous words. sc;
Febimore meaning the SAID Plaintiff closed very ef
fecuvry with appeal for bis character ani picture O
the suffering Of his wife and iamyAis grosn-up laugh
its cru suIsed 10 tears by these ATTACKS on her fier
some said this mawkshbui we consider u good aud
think told We have dieref. story 10 wha tie glr-
CRYING forbui won't state H. est another dose OF
Supreme Court law be administered 10 MS
Thereby meaning that the said plaintiff BY some IN
worthy and disreyui1he conduct, the cause Of attic
ton and tears ln his family
To this the defendants plead ncfio ST. 70 50
much of that part of the 1, out firstly therein
follows "knoivug &c" because the defendants say they
were editors &c and the words constitute part of an
article giving Of plaintiffs suit against defend
ants tried B8.fun spa on the oh December l>i2-
and that such trial plaintiff in addressing the jury in
presence OF the Circuit Judge holding said Court spoke
OF ana concerning one Ihurow Weed and Of action
before them had hy plaintiff against Weed ior word.
published NJ painuf-snc OF and concerning proceed
ms iercn &c held in and for Montgomery county. ami
Of and concerning the n0nat.s OF Weed and the
cause thereof and his motives therefor snd u and
corning lis wife and the shters Of Weed the words
following, 20 wit
That be- The psnta, lii believe any hing about The
sad Weed family being sick al The time then the said
Circuit Court held a. Fonda ua' lie believed that As
the said Weei s-ly pretended that bis family were 'ck
20 excuse himself from attending he trial Of The sed scon
on & occasion that the s0ry of the scAness OF 50 many
OF the family improbable and absurd that Il was con
veneni and desirable FOR Weed 70 have OF The
sickness OF s family that occasion that The story told
BY Weed OF said sickness began with the alleged III
ness OF only Ein. tul-1ning daughter OF SAID
"A and Iff4f