The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-11-12

took them there II il for you to cay whether HUI
sht them not lie 1t offensive or literal! ifo1snsve
hey true II 80, 1t ends 1t. II not offensive, thea it
gal bain So far As 1t regards plaintiffs partici-
on the Is sustained The bail was illegal There
doubt OF IL II Illegal then that not the proper
u Of discnargipg them. Then regards the CON-
IT'S II the article states truly Ha partci and
comments on II are fair then the plaintiff ought not
cover AS to Hurs participation, LCthrop' - evil
90 % to what vas said also. Bakers and Sooses,
substantially consrmsd sil that Was said. Are
true. and a isir comment on what is true
he letter: IL Is OF no Importance nov defendant got
essed Of IL The question Is Co its genuinsn~ss IL
obvious how he got IT, rs the reporter
hs arrest for DR. Crossmaa. /. Did Huh write it 7!
sell says he was In the habit Of attending at the
bbs HUFF tosk minutes Of all that took place ;
hips textiles to tie thing he speaks with the
post conhdescei RANDALL thinks IL is not Huas
ting Philips eays Huffs spelling IL peculiar This
ot important, Independent of character You are
ccide the circumstances and this evidence. Has
been altered at all You can ssy If it bears any
as Of alteration Again-ho much is IL altered
does it make IL any than originally written by
II he wrote IL II not, there Is no cause VI action
IL usiises all comment made upon it. II genuine In
main, and altered in u mode TO render 10 ingram
tical, was IL written to warrant the comment?
20, there Is no cause OF xction, and no damage for
hmeBt.
1T As to sense Of words Were they ironical? II
do the facts warrant it, Legal adviser Of Re-
der y He expressed opinion Did that constitute
b legal adviser in the sense expresssdg
d. Distipg uisbed lawyer Do the facts proved IL
nical, warrant the ironical use Of the words! Do
~ not show that he Is very far from being dstin'
thed lawyer do rot mean TO disclose any opinisa
attorney OF this court for four years. Ysu bound
infer respectable character and attachments. You
look at the evidence. so lar he advised the Re-
tder enormously. The defendant not warra ntsd
holding him to rldioule and contempt The letter.
d course he pursued, were here adverted to by ths
Bd As to his being crier Of the Marine Court and
urt OF Sessions Was II intended to bring him into
icule, or was 1t ofensige' Was the duty ridiculous
cslcu ated to excite rdicule and contempt. have
In r a G
hnd he remarks offensive and the character Of
- duties dd warrant them, then the plaintiff Is
Stitled to damages
18th "Fthing up causes In Sessons:n Did 1t import
ticule WAS 1t true! Managing business Of clients
not wrong There only two witnesses that
hnd.rsoort remembers. IL true, nothing can be
As to Cathsine Boyle defendant says It correct
port Of what took place Standing by itself, it Is
bellous charge IL you ara satisfied, from the tssti
opy. that IL Ia substantially . correct statement
II, then this Is defence it imputss . corrupt no
vs, aud Persons might think he had better
I'D bis peace As to Inf renee and comments were
asy fairly made! IL So the defendant Is not liable.
gu have the testimony OF Palmer, who there in
lie discharge OF his duty; Of Ahearn who was counss
evens says some person came to him; V1ndervoort,
no Ia not Distinct as to whether Hut volunteered;
I'd alro Dennison Ia hs proved to have volunteered
did he wait till called On! IL he interfersd and
the statement the other parts to his mis-
Ike. also true In regard to the fact, where the mat
N had recollection Of it, the officers of court
Id no recollection Of 1t, 1t appears to me that HUH
aght to have given some proof that she had been
'ere before but 1T 10 for you To say whether 1t
10 duty Of HUI t. show that he was not mistaken.
he Judge here recspttuated, aud said If there Is
ny express malice that eacles the psniH to larger
images. HUFF claims that BAKER aud Bennsit we're
situated by express malice, and that he has made 1t
1T by the suit of the mother Of the Martin girls Ia
hich $50 was recovered. and In which HIATT xttor
~. The argument Is, thai because HUI vas conosei
r the moth er. ana then counsel for the dsugh-
rs in Crossmsn's complaint RaScr aud Bennett
ere aetusted by express malice DO you beiievs it
'used any feeling and do you bslevs It caused az
ress malice? The fact II libel entities to lieer.l
images You will give such damages as viii cempen.
Ie plaintiff but you are authorised to give. also,
,eh an amount shall make it exemplary and DO =
srnipg to others provided malice be proven.
The jury retired. and, after consuitiug about two
ID half hours, called into court waen the
man declared that there WAS no probability Of
,resment They we're the..foss dismissed from any
Sthsr considers ton of the case.