The New York herald., 1851-07-15


Before Hon. Judge Greenwood
RUcKMAN AGAINST LExo%=ACfIoN FOR LIBEL
AGAINST THE REPORTER 9F THE NATIONAL POLICE
GAZETTE - VERDICT FOR fhAiNrrF, DAMAGES
5000.
JUNE -Counsel for the defendant having elected in
themselves to two hours time both heard in the
summing up.
Mr. Clark, the part Of the plaintiff replied at
siderable length after which the court took
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On the reassembling Of the court, Judge Greenwood
nstS % aS @s asssSs s and the sss
voice, shall be ~ brief possible in performing
the duty which now devoves upon me, of instructing
you to the questions upon which you to pass and
laying down the principles which to guide you in
your deliberations Is action for written SANDER
what technically called libel For the purposes Of
a civil action, which this is, libel may be defined be
any censerous ridiculiDg writing exhibition cal
o snS
forth in the complaint SO far II falls within the defn
ton have just given, is h6ellous The first question
composed, and published the article, or how much
Of it he did write, compose, or publish, or cause
to be published The publication Of 1t is essential
TO render the defendant liable-an unpublished libel
may be compared to unspoken words. man may write
what he pleases he does not part with It or put IL IN
situation to the notice Of others he may con-
template any words and he does not utter them they
cannot constitute slander Amy putting abroad, or ut
teripg Of the written article which, in its character Is
hbelious is publication. 1t is not necessary that 1t
sho ud be in newspaper. man may write article
extr mely beous and post IT up or give it circulation
otherwise; he may write IL in letter to another-n
either there would be apublication in law With
regard to the question who is responsible all persons
who concerned in the publication Of libel re-
spCnsble person who furnished article for publi
cation it published with his knowledge consent
he writes and takes II the printer and pays not
for its insertion is as liable for it as the publisher him
self IL he wrote it for publication and n published
with his knowledge he is liable to the extent to which
he authorized the publication. With regard to the re-
port ers theirs was lawful calling, and which,
when properly exercised very useful Their reports
when correct privileged and are upon the ground
that they useful The publication Of judicial pro-
ceedings authorized for the purpose Of enighenng
the public, and giving them intelligence as to what
transpres in courts TO the end that they have
opportunity of knowing what decisions are come to-
and which Of their fellow citizens engaged in civil
criminal transactions 1t therefore. not only
lawful but useful calling within the RESTRICT in which
privileged but they have right make of
the privileges the Law gives them for the purpose
Of isdulgng in any malignity or administering to
the depavd tastes Of society and when they do they
far lose together privilege and protection Of the
law With this rule, you may have very little difficulty
in arriving at conclusion in this case. This libel ap
pears to consist ftwo parts The Introductory part
bad il called and the part which gives, pro-
fesses to give report ofthe proceedings including the
affidavit Of Mr. Ruckman before Justice Mountfort.
l1he Introductory part Of the libel here read Down to
the words the original affidavit reads foows it is
the part Of he defendant that il not
written composed by him and that he is not liable for
the publication this point Mr.. Russell and Mr.
Moore have examined and the notes Of the magis
trate Mr. Justice Smith have been read before you Mr.
Russ sell says be showed the article Mr. Lexow that
occasion and Mr.. Lexow admitted that he wrote and
composed it. Subsequently, he showed him other papers,
and Mr. Moore the Assistant District Attorney then in
terposed objection, and the magistrate ruled he
was not bound Mr. Moore testified substan.
TALLY the thing. Mr.. Cogswell, with great deal
of pdistnctness says he thinks that before was
admit ed condition attach ed or stipulation
tered into The examinan states in express terms that
be admitted be wrote and composed the article and the
question IS whether the article exhibited is the same
II Is contended that there and ell that he
did admit that he the author Of the report Of
the before Justice Mountfort As to the in
fro IL L. charged. and Judge O
what weight entitled that Wilkes the originator
and nasmuch II does not appear that this in the
handw rting Of Mr.. Lexow there grounds for
suppospg that he the auther that the manuscripts
showed that he not, and could not have been the
author Of that part Mr. Austin the witness, says that
this is not in the handwriting Of Mr. Lexow, and
that interlineation there is not in Mr.. Lexow's
object. II he the author OF the whole. in
having part in handwriting and part in another.
That answered by the plaintiff contendDg that
that portion directly hbellous, he may have
dictated it, or furnished the manuscript from which il
vas copied IL Is incumbent the plaintiff to make
out his case satisacorly-and must leave 1t to you to
keep view the whole Of the evidence and all the
.derstons which have been submitted to you-that is
to FAY, whether he either composed or dictated it
further ground is that If he did not write it the naers
furnished by him; far the materials
rented ard authorized the composition, he would be
liable-f they furnished with view TO publication
With these remarks leave this branch Of the subject but
before leaving viii merely observe that the extent TO
which he Is liable becomes important with respect the
charges involved and how far the defendant would be
bound to justify. Juries should always rememember
that they bound to r according to their belief
mepSnn this, ss have tha. some have been
bsred and evidently supposed they bound to be
quite certain That is not SO they are 10 take testi
mony under the direction Of the Court and 70 iudge
according to their belief That is all they do-they
cannot know what the fact Is The second question for
the jury H. how far the defence has been made out
aud here you must determine how much II the article
you hold the defendant responsible for The defence is
that far the defendant Is liable II Is true IL that
IL the truth is sufhcient defence but Il must be
perfect justification. shall have few words to say In
connection with this to bes that relate TO the per-
sonsl appearance Of the plaintiff The truth perfect
defence, however malicious the libel In criminal ac
tions for libels, where the public the plaintiffs that
not sufficient tmus be- publRt I'd with good motives,
and for justifable ends. Both combine snd for
this reason-they the subject Of prosee ution
tending 10 breach OF the peace and therefore the law
is not saiied with their being true In civil suits the
rule is different. plaintiff sueipg for damages
stand his rights and the strength Of his char
scter Whatever may be the sting. II nothing but the
truth be spoken it Is no libel In support OF this the
sarn Judge read pa sssge from Stsrkie SANDER
phee IL Is also rule that justification TO shelter
the parties must be complete IL must be- partial If
party undertake TO justify he must do entirely and he
,bort he fails to justify the offence Of which he
guilty IL II nm agrayation and may be invoked for the
purpose Of enhancing the damages The gentleman con-
tends his report true to the proceeding the de-
fndant apr arance and co ouduc and that the whole
srtcle warranted by the circumstances IL is for
you to decide as to this and whether IL contains any
uncalled for sllusicp, and bear the mark Of malice
design to hold him up to ridcule and contempt These
the Issues In fact aud Ia law. Let here remind
you Of what II stated In early part Of this trial do
II Tor the purpose 81 preventing any confusion The
question IA not as 10 MIR Lexows conduct at that ex-
animation whether proper not but whether the cir
eumstsnces warranted the report lie Is not sued for
havrg acted improperly before Justice MounfJrt Nei
ther they TO try the truth fity of any matter
contained in that affidavit Affidavit comprising the
original libel read IL Is conceded that such affda-
Wit made and II is contepded that the republication
Of the contents Of unca, for; but beg TO call
your sttentn to the fact that the truth fshood Of
u IL entirely immaterial have nothing d. with H.
The privileges and freedom Of the press generally pro-
perly undertood undoubtedly is of the impor
tsnce Upon that there difference a opinion; but
editors had greater privileges than other people aud
though hope the time will when they will
be rstrctcd the lceniUusne-s of portions of
press l. much TO be regretted IL mighty engine for
good and may he made very beneficial or improperly
conducted. extremely harmful Reports Of judicial /
In the courts privileged, and II IL
furihsr said they have a right to make fair and /
authorized comments but that Is all they ought 10 do
with reference TO the public good The publication may
be from good motives, may be 10 ridcule, or II may
be lsc these conscientious important TO the
smount Of damages With regard to that class Of lbes
which relate 10 the appearance Of person conduct Of
person. proper occasons when II becomes necessary