The New York herald., 1850-09-17

NkW YORK COMMON PLEAS.
George Wlkes against James Gordon BsHrstt.-
James Gordon Bennett, the defendant, by Bepja-
min Galbraith, his attorney, demurs to 30 much
and such parts OF the reply in this action as Is after
specified, and says-That so much Of the reply Of
the plaintiff TO the defence, set up by the answer
of the defendant to the truth of the matter charged
as defamatory, and Of the mitigating circumstances
by the defendant set forth, is insufficient and the
defendant states the grounds OF demurrer and such
insufficiency, to be-
l. That the several portions of the reply distin-
guished by the words second, third, fifth, sixth,
seventh, ninth, eleventh. twelfth, thirteenth, four
teenth, set opposite thereto in the margin Of the
said reply, and much Of that portion Of the re-
ply which is distinguished by the word fourth, set
opposite thereto in the margin OF the said reply, from
the commencement of such portion on folio sixth OF
the said reply to the words knowledge Of il be-
forehand," on folio fourteenth OF the said reply,
and so much OF that portion of the reply which 10
distinguished by the word eight, set opposite there
to in the margin Of the said reply, from the words
" that il the different alleged extracts" on folio
twenty-our in that portion Of the reply, to the end
of thai portion Of the reply, although they respec-
lively purport TO be reply TO the defence set up by
the defendant, are respectively neither denying
generally or particularly by the plaintiff OF each al
legation controyerted by him, or any knowledge or
information thereof sufficient to form a belief; nor
does the plaintiff in any parts or part OF the reply
above indicated, allege in ordinary and concise
language, without repetition, and in such manner
as TO enable person Of common understanding to
know what is intended, any new matter not neon
BiBent WIN the COpidlnt, IN dvOldhnce OF the an
swer or Of any defence set up therein.
2 The portions of the reply distinguished by the
word fifth, opposite thereto in the margin OF the
said reply, is also insufficient because II does not
alleee in ordinary and concise language, and in
such manner as to enable person Of common
understanding 10 know what is intended thereby
nor does IL appear thereby with reasonable certain
~, whether the plaintiff intends such part OF the
nor whether the plaintiff means thereby to allege
that he will insist on the insuhciencv Of the de-
fendants answer the trial Of issue Of fact OF
the trial Of an issue OF law.
J. The portion Of the reply distinguished by the
word thirteenth set opposite thereto in the margin
Of the said reIy is insufficient, because IL does moi
alege in ordinary and concise language, without
repetition, and in such a manner as TO enable per
son Of common understanding TO know which are
the parts of the defendants answer inconsistent
with or opposed 10 the reply, as to ascertain oi
define how much and what portion or portions o
the answer Is intended TO be denied thereby
4. The portions Of the reply distinguished by the
words eighth and ninth, set opposite thereto In
the margin Of the said reply, are also INSULT.
cieni, because they state conclusions from alleged
facts, and not the alleged facts themselves; and
also because they seek TO justify the publication
by the plaintiff Of certain articles set up BY the de-
fendant in his answer, as having provoked the pub
licaon alleged by the plaintiff TO be libellous, and
which is the cause Of action alleged in this action
and as well because no such justification is or wa'
admissible BY such reply, as because such justi
fcation is insuffcenty pleaded, because alleges
conclusions from facts by way Of justification, in
stead Of alleging facts themselves.
.; The last concluding paragraph Of that portion
OF the reply distinguished by the word "fourth Sc
opposite thereto in the margin Of the said reply
is further insuffc' ent, because ii does not deny
generally, or particularly, the allegation in the an
swer that the alleged libel so far az the same !.
concerning the plaintiff, is true, but denies only
| that the alleged libel is true in any respec; IL
/ which il tends 10 defame him, the plaintiff, and
because the reply ASSUMES that the alleged libe
does defame the plaintiff which is point in issue
8. The portion Of the reply distinguished by tn,
word fourteenth" set opposite thereto IN the mar
gin Of the said reply, is also insufficient because i
| does not alleRe in ordinary and concise language
| without repetition, and in such manner as TO en-
able n person Of common understanding to know
! whether the plaintiff intends thereby 70 raise ar
Issue or issues OF law, and have the same tried by
/ the Court, or how he will seek the benefit Of hii
objections, and have the sufficiency of such objec
/ tons tested
7. And the defendan, says that such reply is fur
| ther insufficient on other and different grounds
| appearing on the face thereof, and which he viii
insist upon the trial Of the issue Of law formed
| by this demurrer.
| Il. GALsRATTH, Defendants Attorney.
| NEw YoRK, Aug. "a, 1850.