The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-07-08


of the wing party and Of the people.
THE LAW OF LIBEL JUDGED BY RECENT DEcr-
sIoNs.-The Legal Observer, for July, furnishes re-
ports of two cases in the New York Superior Court,
before Justices Duer, Mason, and Campbell, the
latter giving his decision in both actions. These
decisions peculiar and though they have before
been noticed in columns, and supply points for
further comment.
The first suit was instituted for the recovery Of
damages for the publication, in the Courier and
Enquirer newspaper, of an alleged libel against the
plaintiff, who was reported to have extorted money
% hush up complaint An er parte statement of
alleged facts was published, purporting to be
history of the affair, in which the editor and pro-
prietor could not be supposed TO have any interest
1t is not necessary, for purpose, to reproduce
the story, or TO alude very particularly to the
points in the defence. The case was argued with
considerable ability on both sides, and Judge
Campbell took much pains in summing up the argu-
ments, and deciding upon the law. He opened by
stating the case, that the defendant commended that
the publication true, fair, and correct account
of public judicial proceedings before magistrate
that the plea contained the affidavit upon which
the complaint against the plaintiff was founded, and
l
pending before said magistrate, growing out of
complaint made by the plaintiff To the replication
that the complaint was primary and original, and
made parts, in the absence of the plaintiff, and
was false and libeous, the defendant demurred.
Judge Campbell, in this case, directed his attention
to the question as to the publication being privi-
legged one. After citing many authorities, the de-
murrer was overruled with costs, the Judge using
the annexed significant language
We that the question presented for our
consideration has before arisen in this State but
the authorities and the which sustain them,
and which have in part referred to therein too
strong to be resisted and give them entire
assent. II is our boast that governed by that
just and sslutary rule upon which security life and
character often depends-that every man is presumed
innocent OF crimes charged rpon him until he Is
proved guilty But the CIRCULATE. OF charges founded
pafe testimony, Of statements made-oten under
by persons smsrtng under real fancied
wrongs, may prejudice the public mind. and the
judgment OF conviction to be passed long before the
day Of trial has arrived When that day of trial comes,
the rule has been reversed and the presumption Of
guilt has been substituted for the presumption of nno
eence The chances Of fair and impartial trial
diminished Suppose the charge to be entirely ground
made before police msgisrae msv .ph eniirs npunv
D, pbhed snt scattered trsadess he lend ne
rocy charges prorsd afterwards 10 hare sissn
from thenson may De eIsren
mace on ne part Of i< publisher The retsi'on ef slsn
Ser such cases osgs ally ats propag dis
sni 'ntsrrd!s aud brings cfsa but Imperfect balm
wo,ds ~hieh hare become sseS end perhaps inea1e
The second was that of James Gordon Ben
nett against Williamson and another, for libel
The defendants, propretors of a weekly paper,
Published of the plaintiff as follows
Sometime about the year 1884 there was Sunday
paper in this city termed the Sunday Courier, which
WAS started by John Tryon This establishment Tryon
sold to Bennett who gave his note for the purchase
money and which note Tryon paid away without
course to himself The who took the note was at
the time. well of the money Of conseq uenoe to
i'm md Rsn 81.
&c; but be not having ability to make sunday paper
60, II died Of. when tn. note became due bennett
could not pay and begged the holder Of the to
wait The did walt nd some years After Bennett
having got on the note vas sued but Bennett pleaded
the statute OF Limitations, and got OF scot fresn
In this case, also, il is necessary enter in
TO the pleadngs at any length. They were ably
supported by citations from many important cases
Our purpose 10 TO show how differently the law
takes effect on the character of individuals Here
was note given for which no consideration had
ever been received. 1t was obtained by a fraud
similar attempt at which placed the projector-not
Mr.. Tryon-aferwards in the State prison Of anoher
stste-and publication Of the assumed facts four
teen years after, by the defendants, who had taken
pains to inform themselves of the truth, was not
deemed libel or malicious. The note had been
paid-and II pretended citation Of what was hoped
to be the ease, was not malicious, then what
business is with Judge Campbell, who, in summing
up, seems to have ost sight of the great principle
80 boldly urged in the first case, with respect to
character. lie said
must lay out OF view in this ease, all the author
ties which support the doctrine that shall re-
cover for special damages sustained by Of pub
LEGATION affecting his trade or profession because there
is no syermcbt or pretence that the plaintiff
tanned any special damage In his business or In any
other form, that the article was written in reference
which he m he
gagged Then. does the publication in question charge
the plaintiff with any offence which renders him amen
sbe to punishment does II necessarily tend 90 hold
him up to ridicule hatred contempt infamy IL Is
no crime to nterpose the statute Of limitations
defence TO action at law On the contrary u may
unacr certain circumstances be not only right but
mertorous a. where defendant has actually paid the
claim. but has oet the evidence Of the payment OF
where, in any action for damages the Witnesses By
whom he might sucesssfuily have defeated recovery
have died during the time that the commencement Of
the seton has been delayed IL IL statute OF reposs
tending TO quiet strife and looking Mt the fray u
human and the natural destruction and loss Of
the evidences q transactions presumes that obiga-
items have been discharged which have not been re-
eoeniEsd as binding for term Of years We cannot,
thersft how 10 be deemed lbelioVs charge
man with having plead the statute Of Ifntstons-
The article alleged to be lbellous was publish'd in
lSsS IL refers to transactions which commenced in
1854 fourteen years previous 10 states thar in
year the plaibth entered into a business operation
that he purchased newspaper establishment gave
HE for IL that he could not succeed and was un-
able to Pay the note that he begged for delay aud
that When sued upon The note he pleaded
the statuts Of limitations successfully There IL
charge that be interposed the plea dishonestly. For
aueht that appears u may have been fairly and honor
ably ihtsTposed There abundance Of time for him
20 have asked and obtained delay TO have Afterwards
paid the note TO have loet the evidence Of such pay
mint and TO have meritoreusly pleaded the statute
The note was transferred without recourse and for
sught that sppsas the plaintiff might have been mis-.
led and deceived by the person Of whom he purchased
the newtpsp,r establishment either as to its subscr
bsrs or income by which he became poor unable TO
pay his note that ueh misrepresentation and deoep-
ton, ON the part Of the payee Of the note would
aensttute defence In the hands Of IONA fds holder
Az he Dttrpofed the statute as legal bar TO support
an equitable defence. In short We are Unable to
thsk ibis publication imports any offence or that its
neoe@sry tendency IS TO expose the plaintiff to ridi
cule kstTed or contempt.
The law Of libel ought to be considered and it's
spirit, benevolent aud salutary provision for the
peace and security of the community but u cannot