The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-06-13

opinion. shall read from morning paper very differ
snt vsnon as my opponent alluded to In his opening
Mr.. WHIrE-Whsfis the name3
Mr.. HALL lin continuaton) il is called, sir, the Nev
York Herald dated the 18th June, 1916 Listen to what
appears that some Of the city editors have been sx
Webb but to hear David Hale-the Rev. David.the
Dayd-n the case Of Watson WEBB speak Of his having
bad moral character, s indeed, amusing; and quite
enough 70 make the sun moon, and seven stars stand
THE immoderate roars Of laughter produced BY the
Greeley, who was called gaivanised SQUASH. had a
personal controversy with Mr. Webb and his character
Of Colonel Webb oush. TO % received with suspicion
ter Of Colonel Webb. Noscifur d sociis was q maxim
which governed society and those respectable gentle
had testified upon the high character of Col webb
The editors who had spoken of him were opposed to
him. and were prejudiced, and as to his Doctor Bacon
being poor. Colonel Webb did not want his money. Ii
Doctor Bacon be without friends 1t suspicious The
/" Upper Ten THOUSAND" as alluded to, had such
feeling as attributed to them; Every man who is
among the upper ten thousand had made his for.
tune; and every honorable and industrious had
opportunity to succeed in this community, he did not
HIS Hoson charged If the charge of bribery be true
in its meaning. libellous But the paper by
any fair rule receive the construction that was not an
words and spirit Of the article in stating that
attempt to muzzle the paper-the corrupt designthe
jury came the conclusion that it libel, the next
thing be considered is the defence set up by DrBacon
libel As the cessation Of the attack they did ust
y the libel and the rule of law in this respect like
the rule of charity and there not particle Of evil
dence to sustain the charge the persons referred
in the declaration put upon the stand and proved
the contrary But counsel said that there circum
stances which should enable them to infer that
Col Webb had been destitute ofmeans and took the bank
rupt act the jury should infer that the LIBEL should DO
sustained.
Mr. Wu,rrI Ala MT sav that 7 never addrassed Ian.
guage like that to any jury
CouRr-very well, if il did not mean that know not
character Of Colonel Webb would be easy to bring up
persons in any large community to say for and against
its privilege and there Was certain rule which should
guide them in opinion The character of newspaper
was the same as the character Of an individual the jury
should discriminate as to the amount Of damage. II
defendant put himself the denial Of the fact it would
of show that he inclined to retrac and did
not believe the charge but where party perseyeres,
then the malice is to be inferred.
The jury will render scaled verdict this forenoon.
Before Chief Justice Jones.
EIxdbeh Patvder Thomas Lockhdrf, james Glib
and others-This action for false and
imprisonment. The plaintiff is widow and
gagged in small commission business, and in the retail
dry goods trade. The defendants are dry goods mer
chants the plaintiff purchased goods from them to
siderable amount. and paid them, except balance of
ruary last the defendant sold out her and the good
will Of her store to named Pauon for which she
received 5000 7O0and reside Seventeenth
street The defendant ascerained that she was about
leaving the city and applied to Judge upon an affidavit
her and I
Upon investigation of tie case, the judge discharged
her, on the ground that females were exempt from
kept in durance for the space of night;
damages for which she brings her action The defend
pate themselves on the ground that the plaintiff was
bona ds in their debt and that her intention to
the for the Of her eTed
Blunt; for defendant. J. T. Brady.
Bernard Murty, by his nert friend rs. Edward a. es-
terry. From the testimony, It appeared that the plaintiff
is boy about II years of age and the time of the
ding in Mott street The defendant is travelling ped
lar, and In general travels through the State Of New
for the purpose OF watching them he keeps large New
foundand dog On the day on which the assault was
upon coming opposite Keys door dog Belonging to ths
latter, which chained under wagon slipped his col
lar ran out, attacked Jessel's dog and fight com
came out of the store, and called upon the de-
PENDANT to take away his dog he would kick it. The
thereupon kicked the defendants dog-upon which it
was alleged by plaintiff that the defendant struck him
with the butt end Of heavy hunting whip, inaictrg
his front teeth and otherwise severely injuring him. Sc
veral witnesses called by the plaintiff prove those
that he DIRE sed the plaintiffs wounds morning and
that he had cut on his forehead the right eye
about inch long and eighth OF inch deep which
must have BEEN lie thought inflicted by blunt nsru
ment. He also that of plaintiffs teeth was
knocked out. and that he was badly bruised The de-
fence that the plaintiff made the first assault Two
witnesses for the defence that the plaintiff came
of Keys store and called upon the defendant take
away his dog he did not he, the plaintiff would
Kick it. and thereupon commenced kicking it violenty
that the defendant then said to plaintiff why do you kick
dumb brute. The plaintiff replied, I'll kick YOU too
and made two passes at the defendant which the latter
parted OF AID then struck the defendant with his 6s
and not with whip, stated by plaintiffs Witness
es. The Jury found verdict for defendant For plain
tif, Mr.. N. b. Blunt. For defendant, Gen. Sanford.