The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-12-06
Court of Common Pleas.


DEc. 5-D,femafior In the adjourned case Of Fran
chs salinero and Tomsso Lopex dc Sslnero his wife
jose NJ owes for defsmatory expressions towards Mrs.
ssbnero. in a letter 20 q S. Lopez
Mr.. Brady having summed up the evidence on be-
half Of the plaintiff, in speech of great ability and
Judge DAILY cemmence ed his charge to the Jury by ex
planning the Law applicable to ambiguous slang
language and what constitutes libel and said that
the whiting here charged IL heous and grossly go tor
womaBs chastity H. the most important trait OF her
character The language here eyinces foul mind As
general rule party may think and write what he
p,ase but II be circuateE what he thinks 10 the tenn
poiary detriment Of another he Ia responsible to the
Law This Is substsntslly the Law Of the Look
at the facts TO IL there has been open deli
very or accidental disclosure IL Is not necessary that
there tboud be intent to publish; enough that t IL
puhished The intent however, is MATERIAL where the
Iubies alton ia not academia Depositing letter In
Ho't oce " The letter be afterwards opened is pub
caton and it 10 wholly immsterisl where 40 Is pub
hthed The injury IL Gsnerslit IL like noxious
hslStion which no boundaries can connne, but which
sprtads Ike poison In the atmosphere II the letter
should even be stolen add cast tie highway and
read, that would be publication. where the letter Is
In the dwriting Of the defendant and II IL opened
ton Of the publication, and IL then devoves upon the
defendant TO chow that the letter, though not In his
Handwriting ard though out Of his possession not
In fact, published by him. The defendant contends
that . was only published to the plaintiff aud that
there no civil remedy where the letter Ia addressed
70 plaintiff and opened by him, In such case no
demeee T. shown. 10 would be true, II you were
la there xony W in1i iin.,so, tais Letter
The authority OF the Irish case, which has been
hddueed 90 not coniider 10 good law In England
CT here am CONTAINED however, to say, that IL tho
letter reror preceded beyond the plaintiff. there
would be right Of sctop. What IL the fact with
gard 10 this Was this letter cent to Havana The
complainant tays it written ana sent 10 Havana
The c,iendsnt fsys II was written and sent, but ne
does not remember its contents Are you satisfied
that that the letter IL IL proved that defendant
tsid be would write tuob letter. This raises pre-
sumption that this wasit n this be the fact welsstn,
partly from plssougs, and partly from testimony that
this letter vas received at Havana While psintiH
absent. Does ;his prove publication II the letter
were brolen open. and eurrspttiously other wise
made known TO persoDs other than the plaintiff. that
would be publication. There Is nothing in the ease
indicating mere intention TO conceal SO far de-
law sys that every intends the consequences Of
piesstd u the letter has be. published you will say
Whist the damages should be There are no ext.pu-
stiug circumftaDc in the Virtue IL the most
precious attribute In the character Of woman and IL
is the duty Of the opposite 10 protect that which
they most admire, and mark their Of
against that which they go highly prize chastity TO
wtuep-e mother or q wife should have led the de.
ferdsBt n there were foundation for the statement
either to be silent to content himself with conhdpg
the fact TO the husband and IL IL due to reputation
that jufies should mark their 81 dlsspprobaion
towards copduct tuch that asoribed TO the def
ant in this action The learned Judge then remarked
upon good character ard its value and the degradation
which woman suffers, hot only among the vrtuous q
Ter own sex. bot among men when = want OF moral
conduct 10 laid TO Der cbsrRe
The jury. In a few minutes returned q verdict for
the plaintiff 81 eco damages.