The New York herald., 1850-05-18

II X.
plication made by N. b. Blunt who said that he
appeared at the request Of Mr. Whiting, and on ac-
count Of his alone ,osa Ma ,Ss su~
Of defending this would have been saved him, but
it was not, he called upon Mr.. Blunt, in his
abtence account Of sickness to attend TO the case
for him. He further said that during an experience
of twenty five years, he had never known an appeal
of this kind to be made by one member of the pro-
fesson to another when the request was re-
fused. He further stated that Mr.. Norton had
applied to Charles O'Connor to defend him,
and that gentleman had declined to receive his
fee The paper on which the motion to postpone Is
based said the counsel is affidavit setting forth
that several important witnesses absent and that
the def ndants counsel is also absent on account OF
sickness The affidavit also stated that the defendant
had to subpoena several witnesses whom he
believed purposely kept out of the way to avoid being
summoned. In conclusion to his remarks Mr.. b. said
he wishedt to be understood that he had earthly
connection with the case, directly or indirectly 1t
was simply at the request Of Mr.. Whiting.
The District Attorney replied. He said he almost
ant said he is indicted for libel on lady and she
urging il to trial and is indefatigable in her exertons
and activity in pressing on the trial. but as she pur
sues it, the defendant flies from it.
James I. Brady Esq here arose and stated that al
though he had been some time engaged in the prosecu
tion Of this he had not before deemed sabe
to say anything to the Court but he could not do
otherwise than to oppose the application made by the
has now been pending long time; asd when the pro-
secutrix found that other engagements would require
the attention of her former counsel Mr. Sandford she
engaged my services So ought the defendant to have
done. II his is plain as he represents 1t
to be- if he is so clearly innocent any one Of the 500
gentlemen belonging to the legal profession could de-
fend him successfully.
The Court decided that the case should bo called
The Recorder alluded TO long time 1t had been pend
ing, and said the unanimous opinion Of the Court
that the trial should proceed
Norton-One word before the final decision OF this
case need OF cad this affidavit, (holding up pa
PERI but object to this being called First on
the ground Of the absence Of witpessesin the next
place on account of the absence Of my counsel
Court-We will open the case, and cmpanel the
jury and then adjourn the court till tomorrow This
will give You time, Mr. Norton, to get your witnesses
Norton-Will the court then issue attachments for
witnesses?
Clerk-They may be here.
Court-If they not here, we will, on the proper
afidavits being filed, order attachments to issue.
The case was then, (aer some business which was
pending. had been disposed of) called and a jury
cmpanelled fhe following are the names OF the
Cornelius IT, Delamatcr, Geo Castell, Bernard Crist.
man Nathan I. Crandell, James J. Craig John Levy,
Abel ii. Rogers Henry Conkln, VIM. S Carman,
Thomas Charters Benjamin Quackenbush, George H.
Cook.
The case was then opened by J. b. Philips Assistant
District Attorney-Ue said gentleman Of the jury, the
you are now empanelled to try, Is one, l am
happy to say unusual in this community; yet one of
considerable interest although 1t may not involve the
defendant in any considerable punishment. William
Norton the is accused of causing to be pub
lished gross and malicious libel against young
married female Miss Georgna Cream, the sisterin-
law Of Mr. Bennett, the editor of the Ntw York Herald
/ shall not detain you by reading the libeous
article It's authorshp is set forth will be proven
against the defendant Che nature Of the libel was
MED the au horship Of the libel But he makes two
fold defence First he denies the authorship, and
the law in the case is, where lbeous publication is
made by party the party so publishing 1t must, In
order to justify prove that it is done for jusable
ends II must not be malicious. but must be shown
that Is ustihsble for some public reasonthat 1t is
done In order TO accomplish some public good 1t will
e here gave some illustrative os this point
Mr.. l.. continued--The letter upon which the lbcous
article was founded va: very apRr0pgrhasly signed
nominated the father of lies.
Norton (rsng)-I insist upon the alleged libellous
article being read This is not matter Of controversy
between myself and Miss Georgna Cream. but between
James Gordon Bennett, the prince Of ibellcrs, and
the columns Of the Ner York Herald to sustain him,
and have the community in which live.
hr. Brady-Thc gentleman does not appreciate the
delicacy which prompted in not reading the libel
IL out ofrespect to his rights considered In most
liberal point Of view. We did not want to read the
20 away with The remembrance in their minds OF the
wrongs done by IL towards the lady But he does not
appreciate what was calculated to operate for his own
benefit.
Mr.. McKson-Mr Norton had better not pursue the
course he has commenced ! would advise him not to
him, TO interrupt the opening.
Norton.-Mr. McKeon, don't want your advice.
Eecorder.-Mr. Norton. counsel have a right to open
their they think proper
TIE Assistant District Attorney then proceeded with
his remarks TO the jury lie said:-Gsntlcmen, this
case has nothing TO do with Mr Bennett 1t has only
TO do with the defendant and the people Mr. Bennett
II sutor OF tbc Neg lcik Herald. and Mr.. Norton
Is a lawyer, and pretends to be a gentleman. With
his private quarrois we have nothing to do IL Is
even the private wrong done to the lady that is
strictly matter for US to act upon. II s for the offence
against the law, the wrong done the public 1t L. for
ths the accused put on his defence The issue IL
not the accused had said IA m self and Mr.
Bennett IL Is not even between him and Miss Cream
The prosecution Is not brought TO obtain private dana
ges No, The issue Is between Mr.. Norton and the
people. We shall, We think, provo that the falstsn
lett'r was sent by Norton to r. H. g. Judson the ed-
tor Of the paper called Ned Bun'Iiae,, Orn, and
the strength Of this letter the Mbeous article was
concoct.d and published.
The case being fairly opened, the Court adjourned
FsIpsy, May 11.-At the opening of the court, this
morning Mr. H. Y. Clark Of counsel for the defenisnt
sitter some time spent In consultation with the dcfcn
dant and his friends arose and sad May II please
the Court, i have some suggestions to make, which
may relieve the Court from the necessity of devoting
any further time TO the consideration Of this case
within few hours past, owing to the Illness Of the
learned gentleman who had been previously retained
f'r Mr. Norton his defence on this Indictment has
been entrusted TO my professional care have given
the subject oil the Investigation which this brief
period has permitted; and after full consulta-
tion with Mr. Norton have come to the conclu-
sion that 1t Ia due 20 him and TO the Of pub
lie justice-and that It Is cminsntiy due to the
young lady who-e character has unfortunately been
made the suhjsct II unjust sfIcrsiop-thst any
further defence should be withdrawn nut while
abandoning the defence and permitting the interpoai.
ton OF the plea Of guilty IL is due to Mr Norton that
an explanation should be made OF the considerations
IL not the author Of the alleged libel lie has ever
insisted and persists Ia insisting that lac in
WY cvnc'Iheu IN ~ lbcre IN attcn-
dance large number Of witnesses ready 20 bear tcst
mony TO the fact that the handwriting II the eommu
nicntons dssimilar TO- and does possess n single
characteristic Of his But while thus disayow-
ing. in behalf of Mr.. Norton, and by his direc-
ton. the authenticity Of the libel, I sm con-
strained to say that certain facts be given In
evideuce. on the part of the prosecution, tend
Ing in some considerable measure o. connect him
with its technical publication and have reason
70 believe that certain ungusrded admissions have
been made by him under circumstances which he
not explain aud which, uneHplained. would subject
him TO legal responsibility for their publication The
libel In question has not been read TO the jury and
d. sire that II should not be IL published
In any newspaper. nor do think IL designed
10 be Its contents are, Therefore. kno~n to but .
very limited number Under these circumstsnces I |
am exceedingly unwilling that unnecessary injury |
should be inflicted upon the rcproachlcss reputation
NJ the young lady in question. by % the |
publicity that would result from the interpo- |
sition Of the defence OF Mr. Norton upon the issue
OF publicatioD have read the libel and am salts.
ned that II ts utterly nd.fensblc IL Is incapable
of legal Justification as well by 81 the peculiar
character OF ns allegations of its want of truth
careful Investigation ~ tho eliminating charges \
has resulted in the perfect vindcation Of the ehsrac
ter OF hiss Cr.an, and n !. nov source of sim /
eere regret TO Mr. Norton that she should ever have
been thus vsntony assailcd tits due TO her, we'll