New-York daily tribune., 1845-05-17
:. ,,.vo,d i,s

S5i Hamilton nrriteHGo sai6, ci.ounS Lo.1 ~
dsI, :. have Been unebls 10 lno SAUSAGE,
definition Of Libel. and want TO saollii. onY
Litcis csasoriouS eTHdicn!ins wriuhs, pacsI,s ,
or -gn, made with mIschie evous ara ma a.
teui toward Government, Magistrates OF 'leie t ~
ais The Snm-Ine Court. IN S,eei . t @oHt
wick, 9J I. 2l5, apcrovsL afid adopted .iiS uei.
nition ard sad Il was drawn win 'he u'i''=' s'-
IMr Justice Beardsley here inquired whe.hei
the Counsel intended 10 question that oeiill.loi oei
which had been 30 long and universally sPpfo'eu .a
OF Nr. Seward replied that he confessed 'ne
meri.y of thinking that the definition al sa= - -
il generally understood, enlarged the scope OF ac
lions beyond what was the settled oeii'ii'0" IA"
IN Ing land and nov IN AmeIcd .1.t,;,;,, 4,
But adopting even HamIitons ashn'.ion' -
would NOT eslbrace the present Lioel- !! Is hoi a
ccnsorous OF ridIcuins ~niins. II 'tnsetS
Ipon the Plaintiff certainly ort nor seFe,e'E VI
censoriorslv. While il neithe- affects nor oe'faSs
any sentiment Of ridIcue.
Aware o. this the Plaiatifi seeks 10 InseFi
sting n III. nnbication which withou; that AID
Is harmless and this ls done by en i'"e'!-
do The inuendo Is that th- Petendaat meant tnai
the Plaintiff was IN .GG rcpmc in Otsego County.
But an .rucndo cannot extend Inc sense "a 'iie
words, unless by reference 10 some oih1F ila''1Is
which are also spread upon the record by ccft0
ov;g1 Bur here Is 40 coloqanB,, and o! coarse Inc
inpeDdo falls unless the true, legitimate ana Only
meaning OF the I-itr g what is charged oy Ihe
inu@nd6. q Starkie. 515, Barbout's Com. Co.
2Oi Now no aueudo Is necessary or proper De-
cause the words are neither Ambiguous hoi are
they alleged 10 be so They mean Just "hat they
say, That the Plaintiff is known IN Ctseso Couny
end therefore would not like 10 BRING an achon
there "Their offending hath this extent, no moTt
Their meaning cannot be we'll expressed by any
eorivalent or parable! words-and certainly least OF
ali by the phrase that the Plaintiff Is he'd IN bad
repue in Otsego County. Taey may perhaps I'M
pv the idea that The flainuti s mol popular, ho1
favored among the citizens OF Otsego County AND
is it belous to alege, al least OF private c'tlzen
who neither holds aor seeks Office, that ne Is not
popular. or is unpopular in Otseeo County
Again the plsader. after adopting The word re-
nute. eyiendo !. 10 mean Reputation, and so his
ino;ies.ye passage tortured into charge oi suc
bad Y. putaii0n against the painuh as ought 10
disqualy him for the society OF his ellowcIllzens
Common sense revolts from such cons.fmcuon-
The inuendo then falls, and we ind the words In
their original tor:,, cad connection Does the law
of this land declare il ibellous 10 wrile ct aparty
Iitigan that he would not hike TO bring an acton IN
a certain County, because ne Is known there!
humby contend for the contrary. Every libel IS
misdemeanOr as well as Private Wrong. When
this Court shall decide that this action can be main
tanned for the-e words, the law Is pronounced that
the defendants are guilty OF d mlsdemeanor which
cannot be cxplated without hnc or imprisonment, or
both And who will believe for moment That
such principle is law, or who believing II could
respect such system OF Criminal jurisprudence.
Thus far have considered the libel In the light
of Hamilton's definition, but | beg leave now TO
submit first, that this definition IS not part oi the
law of this State, and, secondly. that IL conflicts
with the long and well established Law OF Libel.
Is supposed precision consists in such enlarge
ment OF terms as will embrace almost every form
OF written censure, without raising any distinction
between merely harmless vtuperailon which the law
spares and those written caumnles which the law
| rhtFn nnT1l
parisg this celebrated modern definition with the
more elaborated ancient definitions which may be
found in elementary writers and acknowledged
textbooks. Starkie says: Every man has le.
gal right to be protected against false and wlltul
communications, whether oral or rr,tttn, made to
his prejudice or damage. But the Law which re-
cognlZes this right also limits lis extent his Il
done by defining what communications shall be re-
garded as substantially injurious and therefore ac-
uonabe though no special damage or loss can be
shown, and by leaving all other cases 10 the opera
,ion OF the general principles of law. And because
the libel tends Immediately 10 the injury OF the
party presumption stands in the place of proof. /
Starkie, a.
insist, then. that TO render publication action
able 1t must be Dftamatofy.' This Is an ancient
and strong word contained in the definition Of libel
given in Hawkins Pleas OF the Crown; 80 also
TO render words actlonable per Sc. they mus! be
not only DetamatTy but calculated 20 Willy man,
and 10 bring him, as the books say, into hatred.
contempt and rldlcnle. Thorly vs Kerry.
Similar TO this is the definition ot Libel given by
Bacon GA malicious Defamation OF another IN
writing or by sgas or printing, tending either 10
5lacken the memory OF one whs is dead, or the
reputation of one who is living, and thereby eA-
posing him 10 PUBLIC HArKEo, CONTEMPT or RIDl-
cuLE" So also Libel is defined In Buslrode,
30 TO consist OF Sanderous words tending 10 the In
fanny, Dscredt or Disgrace Of Party
From these definitions it It's justly inferred by
Starkie that an imaginary or causeless fear OF da-
mage is not ground OF action. II Starkle %
A review of the cases will show that these old
definitions have been practically retained and ad-
hered 10, notwithstanding Judges have in delivering
their opinlois approved the less severe and ugid
definitions OF Blackstone and Hamilton
Thus, although this Court declared It's approval
OF General Hamllton's definition in the case oil
Steele We Southwick, 8, j. r. 2l4, yet the Libel in
that was clearly gross and severe as 10 fall
within The older descriptions OF that offence. The
Libel was Afiidavl,s " Our army sworc terribly
in Flanders, said Uncle Toby and if Uncle Toby
were here now he might say the same OF modern
swearers. The Plaintiff Is slouch al swearing 10
an old story" Here was colloquium and the Court
justly said that the Libel imported that the Defen-
ddnt swOre with evlty and rashly and nconslderate
ly without due regard 10 the solemntv ut tie oath
or to the truth or accuracy of what he said. Surely
there was no need here Tor new definition SO
also the important OF Riggs Us. Deanlston,
; j. \. 10. l MS court decided mat charges
that the plaintltlwas amisanthrope, violent par
tzan, strlpsng unfortunate debtors OF every cent,
| then depriving them of the benefit ot the act
made for their relief under he most rlfins pre-
tences, wiltul!y and knowingly peryertlsg the
law, (he being Magslraie) for illegal and op-
| pressiye purposes" were llbesus Certainly this
is very different from adjudging that any paper
that Is censorious or ridiculous being written for
mischeivous purposes il a Libel. But confess my
anlazement that Chancellor Kent after Pronounclng
these words libeouz expressed adoubt whether the
law would allow them To be justified. AS If the
trulh was not always Justification at least in civil
actions Such, and for solong has been the Judicial
severity Of this Stale in regard 10 the Law OF Libel.
But the Supreme Court when adopting HaHltons s
definition refers 10 the case of Vlllars rs. Mosely, c.
B. Wilson, 40S, decided In l769. The Libel there
was
"old Vilars. strong Of birthstone you smell.
As II not long since v0u had got out OF Hell;
But this daunable smell no longer can bear.
Therefore desire you would no more come here,
ioa old sinking, Old nasty, Old itchy oii toad
you come here any you must pay ioryour board
You'll therefore take this warning from me,
And never enter these doors while they belong 10
J. p"
This Libel exhibits neither good taste nor good
poetry; but the action was not brought on that
ground. Now II is worthy of especial remark, that
ne nf 10 ptf