The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-02-22
CURIOUS LIBEL CASE.
Superior Court.

Superior Court.
Before Judge Vsndsrpeel.
d. W Clarke u.s. James Gordon Bennen.-This was
IN action for an alleged libel contained In report
Of certain proceedings which took place at the police
ehoe in June lest. There was second count charg-
ing another libel, set forth In to publish
ed communication Of the plaintiff. The case lasted
from Tuesday till Saturday and seemed to excite
siderable interest as the court WAS crowded each day
The COUNSEL for the plaintiff addressed the jury
He said that the opening OF tbs ease had dsvovsd
him very upex peotedy, conssque Of the indis-
position Of his ate He had not read the papers
until within very short time and therefore ne would
briefly state the general nature Of the and the
fact upsn which their verdict would be asked. The
plaintiff attorney az law, keeping his office at
vas the editor an proprietor of the N.v York Herald
The scrien brought for libel contained In two
successive articles in successive numbers Of that
paper which would be SHOWN 10 them was one OF large
circulation ana for certain purpo OF exkensivo In
Auehes IL appeared that the pianih had become the
sgsr collecting the debts OF the firm Of Harris
,ouil and that IL had been authorised to do SO
= under an assignment, and by direct power
which lad been gwen u him for the said purpose It
had become his DUTY TO present claim from the trm
against MIR Bennett, the justice Of which not dis
putsd; but the claim WA not paid, and the plaintiff
therefore commenced sait, aud broug ut an action
Mr.. Bennett, bnuDg that the matter to be prose
cuted with teriOus and not wishing to subject
himself to costs pad the debit but subsequently, the
plaintiff was arrested affidavit. That affidavit
however VAS not as Yet followed up by my present
n.at The Defendant, in professiag to give police
report had the pAInth had been arrested
charge for obtaining money under false prstenoss
Every explanatory orcuustsnoe had been omitted and
the report had bee o garbled to leave
NO doubt that the plaintiff gully Of the offence
charged against him Cns plaintiff, not wishing to
subns TO such IN accusation by paper of so wide
circulation as the New York Herald asked for
PLANTATION, which followed by an article manfesty
malicious. and to which WAS appended garbled de-
esOn OF Chancellor WAlworth put forth tor tho pur
pose of damaging the professional character of the
plaintiff. II ever there q whore the trte
present If the jury belle ssd these things they would
give their verdict for the plaintiff IL might be proper
@ sAs
reading OF the hbels when
The CoURr interposed anu asked what the plaintiff
complained Of whether the complaint WAS for publish
ing had in the police court for giving
. oolorng to the report.
The COUNSEL said, it was for having given gsrbled
statement OF the proceedings and for having omitted
every sxcalpatory and explanatory circumstance.
EMANUEL Z PEAcH was the nrst witness examined
days which the papers the libel In Ques
ton published, for the purpose of purchasing
them.
Cross Examined Bought the papers at the request
Of Mr. Clarke He witnes refidss at % Centre street,
and lie . barber by trade.
The COURT Consider them as having been read.
The COUNSEL raid that there WAS something else in
the paper which he wished to -ead also.
The CoURT did not see the object which was to be
gained by such q course - that Suppose tho paper
Contained LIBEL upon any else, would the plaintiff
seek to derive bensht from that was he interested
in the expedition to Calilor ala? (Lsughter There
might be something about that in the paper, and
So was that read Irrelevant matter and tn ngs
which formed part Of the Of the action must
not be pressed into 1t.
paragraph declaring the circulation Of the Herald.
The CoUKr That was admissible, as it was admitted
by the parties themselves.
The paragr aph was then read.
SAMUEL HARRIS the next wtness called, but he
did not appear.
Mr. f. SANFORD then rose to address the jury for
he defen
clearnerE and force OF its reasonDg the obstnacy OF
Its logic, and the commanding character OF its elo
Quence. He thought that they Must have been
prised when they had heard the matter which had
been charged hbelious read The frst alleged libel
report Of proceedings which had taken place in
public court Justice and the second had reference
to tain legal cesdiDgs the whole scope Of which
that Chancellor Wslworth had been quoted to show
that he lClarke) had been SO. What was complained
Of AZ lous, fair and correct report Of what
hsd ia epen court and tha. he would bs
able to TO the entire satisfaction OF the
jury. The grounds upon which the publication had
appeared were not malicious, ard what had bee set
forth ia the true aud that was the Issue which
they had 10 try. soald 10y before them the depo
stions from which reporter had taken hs iniorms
ton and upon comparing them both they would see II
was not responnble for the truth of any complaint
which might be ade in court Of justice. II be gave
what alleged, If he published NO more than what
was stated, he was justified by Law. II, on the
trsry appeared that important facts In the deposit
tions had been suppressed ths case haa besn pub
indeed there would be ground tor the complaint
made ainst the But he would show that he
(the des ndant) had not been aotusted By any such
motive The report IL question had baen prepared BY
the ordinary reporter in the usual way Mr. Bennett
had not teen it until after it was in print he
had had no agency In the affair and was
cognisant Of IL until other persons had SCENT IL
he ths learned counss could satisfy the jury that
these gaens true and tina. the report charged
as NbelloLs was no more than report Of what had
taken place in court Of justice then they could not
hesitate to pronounce verdict Tor the defendant.
fart nuhli eutio IF tha fUhto oh
Mr. Ben nett had neither knowledge partic patton
in. The second article which was also charged as
hbellous was nothing more than g reply to attack
which the plaintiff bad made upon the report which
the defer dsut had published IS an ordinary Item of
news. The drm Of Harris Rsnnouil had been on
gagged by Mr. Bennett to make some alterations in his
exte psive establish ment On the 2sth of April 1S4S,
the firm had dispute and each gave notice to Mr.
which they had against him. The plaintiff was OBJ.
jected to by Mr. Rennoui because he had not his
(Mr R.'s) confde nee. MIR. gave notice to plaintiff
that he not to collect and to Mr. Bennett that he
was not to pay him. The rule Of law was, that one
partner might collect aod appropriate but the legal
dissolution 80 that neither could give any lien upon
II, and ore partner had right to bar the othsr by
giving notice to the debtors not to pay. The only
course to appoint receiver. Under the circum-
stapces Mr. Ben nett could not have paid the money
Had he done otherwise, he weuld have had to payi
over again. Mr.. Bennett WAS not annoyed b. the in
sti,uton Of the suit he thought it might had
the effect OF bringing the parties into one suit,
that the money might be paid into court As Mr.
Bennett was always ready to pay the demand he
ct once referred the matter to his legal adviser,
Mr. ~Galbraith, in order to ascertain, II he could,
who had the right to receive the money, aud with
instructions pay 1t to euch party. The plaintiff
had presented himself to MIR Gabraith as the party
who was entitled to receive the money He (plsintf)
had ead that he had received an assignment from
Harris empowering him 20 collect the debts due to the
firm to which Mr.. Gabraith had replied that that
did not satisfy him but said that If the plaintiff
brought him (Mr Galbratb) written authority from
Mr.. Rem nouil, ne (Nr e. would be ready TO pay the
claim The plaintiff then began those equvoestions
~rbs had I'D IN he itfgult
that he could pot get a written au.hority, as he
INT RennosiD had gone to France MIR. Gsbraith
Thought that that assertion had been made by
professions he might rely upon is; and he there
had to press for the written authority
he (Mr q bad supposed thai Mr. Rennouil was
beyond me ,eas Inc Jury you'd recelIect, tnss .ns
the authority Of Rennouil TO collect the debts such
ton being ed in addition which he had
made to his af savt and which to the following
eGect-The sald Opponent further says, that he has
received authority from Mr. Rennoul to collect the