The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-01-25
TWO CENTS.
Cire ult Court.
Before Judge Edvsrds.

SIMON WILCOX v. JAMES GORDON BrNNErr-AcrIoN
n. ,, FOR LIBEL.
/ ms WAS an action fer an alleged libel con-
uned IN police report, which chsrgsd the psintin
With confpiring with others to defrsud nan n.msd
Herald in the year isss o ~hioS o.nar IN tns Ns- York
the propristor and editor The trial hs. oisd th
cumloc utory speech from Of the nisn
TIN, which was spread the space OF Ave mott,
Judge Edwards then proceeded to charge tbs ur, "a
the Ionovibg effect :-Gentlemsn OF the Jury rhis
~step 70 recover damages for alleged
public Journal edited by the defendant t Is general
tue OF law tnst written words which ulsted to
| Ups fsity into odiun rcicule disgrace, are
hbsllous and become actonsble That the pubicstion
was one OF thst character not denied by the dsfend
that this publication fair report of the proossS
ipgs OF the police court and next the ststemen Mt
ground It iss general principle of law that a pro-
csedings OF public character may be puslishsd But
there Is this confederation attached the privilege
must be correct and fair statement Of the proceed
inge anything Is stated which did - occur or II
statement Of the proceedinstbst IA s.sSsrous .us
amounts to libel. The plaintiff contends that this
report was not taken from the public proceedings
the court-tnst IL was not procee of that cnAr
actsr that 1t intended private and that the
Information which was published Gas obtained from
inc hIe OF The ohce and net from the proc Of
the court Policy requires that proceedings Of
nature rIsu be aept secret until the party charged
cy, the Grand Jury before whom an Is laid
prohibited from disclosing their proceedings Bat
In Ibis csse The parties arrested and 1t Is
ctssary 10 apply that rule OF policy here How far an
editor may publish it Is necessary TO decide
u !. sufficient here that defendant has set up de-
fence and Justification that he published such proceed
ines as an item Of news; aud AZ defendant sstsb-
lsbed that plea he has succeeded in establishing hs
defence 1t is testified by Mr. Ste~art the clerk OF po
lice that the parties mad been arrested; aud that 1t
vas the general fue OF the to let the report
ere see ,he complaint until after the parties were
resteo; but after that pubic policy did render t
necessary to Keep IL any longer secret The reporter
states that he got the complaint either feom clerk
Ng Ot rat md hat hat fnfk
Of the charge from the pers Of the ofics rhs de-
fence is That II Is correct ststement; and IL is IL
correct statement this part of the d.f-ncs s made
out II not, it tails You will take the CON plaint aud
the publication ind If there Ia any or
slsndereus charge contained In the report that not
In the complaint. As TO the second branch OF the de-
fence gentlemen. that the charge Is true. Truth is
Qualification In cisil suit crmiua Law Is what
different; but In the OF cvil suit all that Is
ctsary Is TO establish that IL Is true Tne alleged libel
contsins charge OF consPring to defraud. It iss
general rule of law, that when n number OF persons
conspirs together 70 execute common purpose de-
fraud II is criminal offence 10 establish this it Is
necessary that they sboold join together and In
concert for one common end Now, In order to prove
the crime it not TO prove their meeting
getber; but IL IL is estsblished that there q
iBterest or common purpose, concert Of action
amongst them-vhioh you may infer from ac,s-you
~i be right In coming to the
copsprscy And sfter the piracy established the
Of each bin the other and liable for the
The testimony has been exceedingly
full and the dspositops long tius TO read and
. longer time TO comment upon by the counsel; | do
isy tdown the general rule Of Is and II you believe
that spiracy defsud then OF the
justification 10 made OUT not the not
made out. II the defendant his first
IL will not be necessary for you go into the other II
he has made fair statement these pro-
ceedings the Justification s made out and will not
be for to into the other branch but
be bss not then you ~ni take the question
the facts contained In the report false IL
II Ia not fair report and you the conslusiou
that the facts also are false w then the
question of damages IL Is stated aud it Is fact that
IL Just,ncston 60 made by dsi.nd.nt itis aa
aggravstion OF the SANDER because b. folio it up
ieiterstes It and ebdesyorr TO prove t trvs sad be-
cannot such defence shows the party Is astd,d
by that kind OF malice Witch the Ia oon.iders a.,
proper subject for exemplary dsnsges
1bejury In . few minutes returned q verdict for the
defendant.