The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-05-08

Superior Court.
Before ss.S, JS %ss v .n% poe. IA,
There was an unusual hustle and excitement in the vic
nifty Of the court ROOM in expectation that this trial
in court and his counsel having stated they ready
josrrs l. wHrrr, Esq. (of counsel for the defence)
called his list of witnesses consisting ofMoses H.
Grnnel, Richard NJ. Blatchford, Edward Curtis Con-
Robert c. Wetmorc Charles w. Sanford John Clark.
con- Benjamin Drake Conrad Sweet Marshall o. Roberts,
bert B. Mnturn. Charles A. stetson, James Bowen, chas
King David Hale, Rev. Samuel Seabury. VIM e. Bryant,
Roe Lockwood, Edward r. Robinson, James II, Wood.
John t. Dodge James ". Reynolds Moses Y Beach,
Mr. w. here requested the clerk to call Edward Eurts
The CouRr directed accordingly the clerk to call Mr.
/ Curtis when there reply.
Mr. WHITE then in moving for an attachment against
Mr. Curtis, said II feel that in rcsortng TO practice so
apparently harsh for the purpose Of securing the aten
dance OF this witness is necessary that should assign
libel brought by Col Webb the editor OF the Courier
and Enquirer against Dr. D. Francis Bacon The libel
complained In substance that the doctor published
Of Colonel Webb that from day therein named up
the month of October 1912 the Colonel through tho
columns Of his paper was IN the daily habit and practice
of abusing, denouncng vllifying, and by the employ
ment Of every species Of epc raducing the
of Daniel Webster then Secretary Of State for the United
suddenly ceased dcnouncing and traducing the disn-
guished Secretary and shortly thereafter IN consdera
received from Mr. Websers wealthy friends in the city
of New York, he became warm and pernacious advo-
cate Of MIR. Webster and in the abundance Of his regard
for his fame and his talents nominated him for the Vice
Presidency ofh United States In short sir the alleged
libel is that the Colonel sold himself and the influence OF
his paper to promote the ambitious views Of the Sccrea
and his friends Now sir client has thought pro-
per to avail himself Of every legal defence this action
and has pleaded not only the general issue but with this
plea he gave notice Of and this justification
he means prove at least attempt prove it. This
Mr. Curtis, as with it and by him, if what no
has said, and what we can prove he has said
S Know can s. ,S, qualification i
Of the change Of the Colonels position from one Of
hostility to one Of friendly regard and advocacy Of Mr.
Webster did say that the Colonel applied to Mr. Web
sters friends for money and that he knew money had
been paid to him. This statement communicated to
supposed was natural he should suppose that
impossible for Mr. Curtis who upon terms Of init
mate friendly intercourse with the Colonel dining his
table paraking of his cheer visiting where he visited
say that Of his friend, which, if known must annhilae
unless such statement were true Hs conlJ not bcaxs
that any would tell deliberate alsehood, for the
purpose OF degrading the character whose repua
ton he protested to hold dear For these reasons, sir
my client expects that Mr. Curtis will that what he
has said is true Having said that the horse sixteen
does sir, our justification will be complete. If he
does not, he must say that he has said that Of his
friend, the only tendency. Of which was to de-
stroy the character and subver the standing Of that
friend and that what he thus said untrue This we
not suppose he will say As Mr. Curtis did declare that
he knew the money was paid he must have been the
principal instrument in the negotiation of this purchase
sale. For this reason, and because it will somewhat
involve Mr. Curtis himself believe that he never will
como voluntarily in obedience to the ordinary writ
upon h Hct ia 70 testify 70 the details Of
not safely risk clients without the testimony
this Witness am determined to have him here unless
this court have lost the to enforce obedience
process He has taken half dollar and the
that we must have from him. have made this motion
more sir to show that am in earnest in the defence Of
this suit and the trouble and delay
upon similar motion, which feel that shall be
motion granted and IL it is granted now shall pro-
baby be driven by similar necessity to make il again
then Blu. that es will meet when i comes
to acqucsce in the motion for postponement; his client
feeling anxious to afford every opportunity to defendant
couRr-I have doubts as to the suggested by
the counsel for the defence; however sha er& the
The affidavit of George Shea was here read by Mr.
White stating that he had served subpoena Edward
the present term and handing him the usual Of fifty
cents Mr. W. here again moved that the grant
attachment, from the first day of the ensuing term
Covnr.-Why not apply for the present tem1
| Mr.. WHiTE-We DO not wish to allow Mr. Curtis the
opportunity Of avoiding coming into court from
| term, and causing further postponement
| CouRr.-Why not take the usual order for attach.
Mr. WHirE.-.Bccause, your Honor, we should be
obliged to move for an attachment against him from term
The Court here directed that the usual order be taken
for attachment The case however goes over for the
The Butchers aud Drovers' Bank o. Walter Sutherland
This was an action on promissary note for $780, The
defence technical and the jury under the direction
Of the Judge found verdict for defendants for $i62 TO-
subject the opinion Of the in bank the law
points raised by defendants counsel For plaintiff Mr.
Schcll for defendant, Mr.. Allen.
Thomas Gardner Daniel W. Townsend-This was
action to 800 the balance ofmoneys advanced
agreement with defendant to deliver lot Of hams
and other provisions He delivered all except the amount
for which the suit Is brought Defence, set off, Yer
dict for plaintiff $50 H. For plaintiff Mr. Schel for de-
PENDANT Mr.. Brewster.
Charity Hedisy Samuel Magie-This an action
promissory note for $685. made by the defendant
favor Of person named John Harrison The defence set
up usury and want of consideration John Harrison
was offered to prove that 1t accommodation
given to himself for the special purpose Of being put
the Seventh Ward Bank that instead Of applying he
passed II to the plaintiffs husband The witness OBJ
ccted to the ground Of interest," and the Court allowed
the objection after which the court adjourned For
plaintiff, Mr.. A Thompson; for defendant, Mr. Vultee.
Before Chief Justice Jones'
Phillips u.s. French-This cause is further adjourned 10
this morning