The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-09-24

That ns me eppears at sight ID. Anson Pratt. The
plaintiff liz admitted to be the editor OF that pa
per With these admissions before your mins and the
fact IL ~ the plaintiff is that editor to whom do you
gentlemen say that the article Is pointedfor in any
dispute that, the judges. And II tbs arti-
Gle did in fact refer TO the editor OF the MerehaHs
L.dgty, and 1t holds him up to contempt aud
rlicuie, or exposes him TO disgrace or scorn he
msy maintain an action, and he may do so al
though IL be trgs that everything contained in the
article was literally true in reference to some other
IL is the alfe reference to the plaintiff in such
that gives him the action 1t would fhs
crimes, mlsde or folles of might with
inpunity, be imputed to every other who may
bear mseithee by dire ct assertion ven
DIV In msnuec which brings the innocent into CON
tempt or disgrace. To impute 20 the crimes OF
Their is less falsehood no hess culpsble than
TO impute TO him crimes not connected at all with
him 1t no libel say that Is the relation of
another who IL described as infamous. 1t Is libel to
associate one with acts which render msn infs-
TO lead 10 the inference that he Is the actor
You gentlemen, will consider the tone OF the article
and II ON its face IL is apparent to whom refers that
ia tufcient. II not will look to the facts proved
or admitted which explain the reference, and show
to whom Il was pointed. III Francis NJ Pratt the
person in'erded., why was the Merchants Ledger
referred TO, with the distinct avowal that the
writer had the name OF Pratt at the head of
the psper, when the name he had thus seen, ID.
Arson Pratt and not Francis NJ Pratt aud II rets-
aton The purpose sftb article il NOT aimed
at the author publisher OF the previous alton
In tbs ledger How VAS It retaatory? 1t Is however
argued that the Article complained Of assumes that
Francis "a. Pratt Is the relative Of the editor
OF the 1t'ssreph that Francis NJ Pratt hsrished
publication in the Ledger originated in that i'll wiA,
and that the sspersioDs upon character are all ad.
dressed TO Francis Pratt only You gentlemen, have
heard the ofcounsel on both sides upon his
question ant yCu must decide the whole evidence
whether this article refers TO the plaintiff in such wise
10 bring him uto contempt uie, expose
him 10 disgrace and soorn ii not enquiries stop
h re- abd he defendants entitled to your verdict
III IL does, then IL alicious or miscellaneous II
false IL its i'm gutatioBs aud belous In its character
that is ovidsI OF malice. III made to crafty either
spirit OF detrscton or spirit of mt that Is
-si eIee0 plaiie Al A hp IlgutiU
II true AID published for lawful purposes, it is msli
eious In tbs eve OF tbe law And this leads me- to the
inquiry, what is justification The publication OF
the truth for Lawful purposes IL justabe. The de-
PENDANT does not attempt 10 prove that
IL true 10 any degree, so far ~ it affects this
pisiDiilf IL sGeets him at all II therefore the art
c'r affected che reputation ofthe plaintiff uuiavoraby,
there is no Justification based upon s truth IL IL
Justification Inst the defendant did not know the
plaintiffs il is justification that the defendant be-
eved tue; IL Is 10 Justification thst he had been
told that 1t true; 1t IL no Justification that the
plsintiH bad inserted in his paper article rejecting
upon the defendants or either ofthem. party when
H. own character Is asssisd, may defend it, This
right is clear the right Of self defence in any Of
IT. relations Person or character being attacked IL
may be oei, udsd; aud an article having only this
scope aud object h ustinsble II true in itself although
u might, as necessary consequence, make the In
jury react upon the reputation Of the adverse
opse distinct independent libel. No more than
one stsault sliaes suosequsnt Independent "a.
sault by tho subject OF the first attack Revenge is
justification; the qualification Of bad passions sygra-
Yates rather IL, the offence Then the ques-
ton a. 70 Who O. be regarded as publishers Of a
libel trt, lie Sho writes II and gives t out Tor Pub
LEGATION. 10 this POSITION the defendant, wilkes, dis
tiDcuy pisces himself by his answer. Secondly, he
Who Prints = for dissemination Is publishar, II 10
lie distributed 10 the public IL the defendant rhsmss
osIs the press On which the paper Is printed, and
ceives the proofs OF t. proportion to
the quantity az patronage which be secured to it,
athough he eifru.ts II management 10 third person
Who rst takes his penses and compensation out
the ieeepts no 10 TO resarded the printer within
the rule suseotng the prater &C. liability for what is
printed Tliroly, The sgcnt WIZ Keeps an ofnes and
and tn ali .a
for gain ic also 20 be regarded "a pubsbsr or the
hesl Net every one vho may have paper In his pos
session ~ nshis Not every tubseriber 10 paper ca
whose table th- daily papers found and read Is
hbsil"r, A. without his knowedge there DO found in
Who maze T. ttGir business to sell and diStribute
e. preat the eiIusions OF tho daily proas do so
t1e peril Of Just possibility. They undertake
the busintrs % their own risk; and n they sllow
Themselves TO BE- used for the purpose of dissem-
mating Uuwsrfsnted aspcrtions upon private rspa-
tstion they are liable H. upon the views I have
suggested. you hnd the defendants, or spy Of them
liable for publishing the article in question, will
consider Wat damages the plaintiff ought to recover
have remarked IPon the circumstances which do
and those Witch do not amount to juatieatioa Of
ltbl But many matters may be considered in mitiga-
ticn a. dsnsEvs which Justification Of libel
pubis ler by selling Or rihting PsPer In entire
the same light a cuntsry publisher with full know
lr5Ee that the libel there. publication. made
uaaor the Irovocauon Of an unjust attack, rs not
1okCo attack In this view, the article from the Mr.
csanfs I'gT has bcCn remarked upon. II has ben
in u Of which the isfsndsnt wilkes could justly
plain and 90 Ter - tends, " at all, g. explain the
hheuut matter e,tcn Its character 10 may b. con.
siisrsd.by you That party, In an HONEST endeayor
10 discharge pubiis or private duty, individually
erfs y matter OF mitigation but that IL always TO be
takh In correction With the Obvious duty of the pub
lster - disavo~ and correct the imputaton And al
though tte defendant have been misled II b. pub
DE rumor az By information from another he Il led 10
believe what be sHy- % DE true; he u no. ustiied Ia
the Publication Which proves false. The offence 8
not 20 ~ charged wish abhestons, grounfisss
ip thtmsclgts, which tls Publisher does not himself
believe, or has reason 70 believe And in Chi.
necton The actual olives OF tho publication, II they
appear ere At greet importance. The learned judf-
here read ffveral points submitted BY the d~feniants
counsel AZ continued the judge, the publication
q truth with bad motive msy be libellous much
ruose T. isseh cd put forth 20 gr.tiiy rcveuse OF
ether evil Gispcsion. ~ the attendants, undsr the
iusituciiors Rave rivsn you guilty o tha Tibet
complained e. they. o. 90 many az you dni guilty,
A." liable % The sgme eXtent-We cannot sever No
Damages.
A juror bsgged 10 AK the judge they could divide
The smcunt 81 oama gcs on the di1srrut desndant-'
The judge Piled "a the negative ard said they have
ccmf- tied themselves o. The responsibility aua
81 O. sUcl a. you hnd guilty. ycu sill ind your YER
Diet cct orally against them for the damsres sui ~
60 any rhcm yoa find not guilty you viii and zcac-
rally Cor them.
Tho jrry thtn retired and not having sgreed 1t hale
pest our the Judge ordered sealed verdict 20 BE-
dsred this morning