The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-02-22
h.rlx

This winners was not cross examined,
Inc COURT having ovsrrulsd another Of the plaia-
n oounfsrs oh1eoions h-lput on his coat, folded up
his papers and then, uuder great and
with deep emotion said that tina Court had crowded.,
upon him. he might bs wrong DO, that was h impress
sion, and Therefore he would rather step the suit
altogether let them withdraw Juror and have tina
sut tried before another judge
The COUNSEL for Defence sald It not bad policy
the part Of the opposite counsel to conclude the
procee dngs Of the day With sonnet hing pathetic
The asrecate counsel for the plaintiff then rose but
Otherwise IL would have great pleasure In hearing him.
He had conducted his part Of the suit with proprety
courtesy and good order It did not see what all the
fourth was about. The counsel seemed to think that
he had been opprrssively used This tried
like any other There nothing in evidence to show
that the had made dispo .tion Of the
money which he had received under the Assig nmsnt;
the question WAS whether not he had obtained the
money nom Mr.. Bennett under false pretenoes If a
perton had obtained Nancy by dishonest means, aud
had applied 10 10 char able purposes that would be
excuse and would have but ttle the
His Honor, Judge VArpEsPoEL, then rose to charge
the jury. He raid 1t was to be expected that the
counsel on both sides would have tasea wide range
in the dhchsrge OF their professional duties: A
great many topics which we're foreign to the issue
had been dragged in but hs sure they would
have difficulty in disabusing their minds Of and
freeing them from oil improper influences which
were extraneous to the facts of the case. Ths
merits Of MIR Bennett, as spoken OF by his learned
counsel ON the one hand and his demerts, spoken
OF by the learned counsel for the plaintiff the other
the poverty OF MIR Clarke his present character
apdstanding-a these we're not warranted and had
trying the defendant on Il specific charge and il tho
stepped inch be yond that, they would be usurpn
duty not given to them by law and more, they woul
be aithlefe TO the OF the solemn Dash the
had taken to decide according to the facts disclosed
the by the testmeny After the vide wanderings of
both the counsel 1t would be his duty give them the
law Jurors and judges bad their duties
His duty was paramount, and theirs was equally So
The duty the Court was u dispose Of tho law and
the jury to respond - the facts II the court
was wrong. the party could appeal to another court
and have the error corrected but If the jury rebel
ouely set Themselves against the court the party
was me dees The law had wrely ordained that each
supreme within it's legitimate CIR Gle orbit
which they had listened to the case, was an ample
guar nty that they would discharge their duty no.
nestly, boldly, Invariably md Independently. HIS
Honor then defined what libel II the defend ant
bad shown that the report fair account of tho
proceedings which had taken place before the police
nagistrse then he haa proved II they
concluded that it Wss fair and impartial account,
they were not called TO 20 farther but If they
should decide that he defendant had not succeeded
his attempt TO justify that would in aggrsvaton Of
damages The bol0ness Of the defence would rise up
in judgment ny anst him 1t for them to say IL IL
was an impartial and accurate report. II reporter
for nsteDc- thoud give the vuperative parts of the
speech OF one council AND not do the regard
ed that Of the opposite COUNSEL and If he omitted to
give the evidence on both kioea that would be libel
Of the groteest character But reporter A. to
copdense, by giving the substance and essence as
fairly and gliy If the whole of the evidences
bad been given he would not be- held liable, and the
omission would lot be fatal to The par ty Undertaking
to publih The learned counsel for tn. plaintiff had
coptended that the proceedings at the police oics
were exparte and that therefore the report not
privileged communication. According to their sta
tute the proceedings bad not been exparte. All pro-
diDgs in their courts If Justice open to the
public and It was well tina, it should be- For verbal
well as for ss For .snDs If
went to another to inquire into tho character
OF a man whom be was about to employ,
and If that person told him that he thief that
uD der the cncumstsncss was a privileged commun-
cation, and did not expose the party TO action
Eut these privileges should be used In fair and i'm
IL. n not want nriyat nr
malice They must not be used "a bsrbsd and poi.
ecnsd ipstrume nts to wresk private vengeance and
countries that boosted Of liberty. In dsspotsm they
were worse than useless They were the offspring If
courts Of ju.tce and their legislative assemblies, But
they ust net be perverted to unhoy purposss. Let
them beware how they circumscribed the right Of
privileged communications On the one hand or how
unwisejy they conceded 1t the other. Had
that privilege been abused That wae for their
confederation Mr. Bennett was legally respon
sble for every hing that appeared in his paper. If
he deliberately read over = defamatory article,
and then inserted it; IT, in word he was the
father If the article; II bis the hand that had
pepped it, and his the voice that had approved
of it, then they would give bes vier damages; but he
had b.sn made liable by the indiscretion Of his aubor
dihates, their own common sense would tell them
that that would go in mitigation of damages. The
evidence Of all he doipgs with the plaintiff, and
the Frencbusn showed that MT. Bennett had had
Hrtle to 90 with them. And that not surprs-
Ing. The demands upon the time Of an editor Of
journal Of so large circulation as the Herald was
give and an all eDgrossiBg occupation. He (Hs Ho.
non had locked the ndavs and the report, but
1t would be treadpg their ground poaching their
nor 10 give his opinion He bad decided impress
sion, but be would keep that impression to himself -
One thing was favorable to MIR. Bennett viz his will
ngRets frt m the start to pay the debt He had been
between two fres-Harris on the ride, and Ren 4
nouil on the other He bad evnced entire wiling.
Iess to pay be knew to whom He had svinced
the least to dscbarge the claim upon him,
and the jury would say wh ther it aot natural that
upd,r such eircucts ces he mig BIT have said to Har
= fNlafE had cd Ea m To- N ha
which PERI apps migh be tsken to mean that although
he wa willing to pay, he had been sued: They would
say il that the deep malice which had instisated
Mr. Bennett to publish tbs articles But II Mr.. Ben.
nett hsd not amiabe towards Mr. Clarke, that
repert had been MAIDS and published for maigna
puIposee, and for malicious motives then the defen
dunt lost his privilege IT, on the other hand he had
given the like that of other fair aud
tisl he did not lose his privilege If they decided
TIL it was fair account they would dismiss it, whe
| ther The facts were true or not The ahtquated no
ton that the gre alter the truth the greater the libel
exploded 1t bad its erign in most polluted source
the able old English Star Cham Der; 1t had beer
exploded there and could not long live In country
where whoestme liberty prevailed The liberty ef ths
yrees this country regarded o. an inesmaee pr
vilege it's lcentiousne curse was iignt that
psiptiG should come into court with clean hands The
great qneop was whether Mr. Clarke had been Utility
Of obtaipipg money under fase pretences Did he
tell Mr. Gabraith, rs a means OF getting the money,
! that Rennouil had gone 10 FraHce' And, secondly,
did be ray hat be had authority from Rennou to 70.
ceive the money! There the most material mat
projected bis unwugpsss to pay, unless other EVIL
eence than tie assig mt had been exhibited. Had
Clarke any authority in addition to the assignme
That was the point IL was bad faith on the part
of Mr. Clarke, II, after MIR. Gabraith's entire and
inexoTable upwilliDgness to pay the money, ne
alleged be had authority from Rennou to re-
ceive the money, while in his own breast
he derived that authority from the assignment 1t ap'
tesrvd that Re ouil had not only given him au-
horty to receive the money, but had objected to mis-
having any concern in the matter IL wssa question
Of creditility between Rennouil and Harris. They
were the antipodes of each other Harris lad sworn
hat Repnou had given the plaintf authority to re.
eeys tbs money Rennouil had denied that he had
given any such authority. When they saw witnesses
in ch position they TO cast about for probs
-probab tiss arising from the sntag MYSTICAL position
of The parties. Had Harris by his conduct, shown
that he was willing to pay his partner, who (said his
Homer, with much earnestness Of manner) had To-
bored hard with him for three years thst which
vas due to him, by oonierring with him upon the
subject Of the assignment beforehand? 1t was
au act Of decepcy ftom one partner to another
why rhould be have entered into arrangeme mt
with Clarke before he had consulted his partner
,bara q nhaht hutn ham ~