The New York herald., 1851-07-11
Brooklyn CITY Court.
pef,ae Hon. yuige 0reenwoo

Mr. Russell. with WHOM was associated Mr. H. II. Clark
et' rsed for 'he p'aiptG and Mr. schafer and Dol G.
Jack for the defendant
Mr. Russell opened the case by reading the libel which
published IN the Police Gdzeis ed June 1850 and
purpored 10 be report of examination taken before
Justi,e Mountfort in wherein the plaintiff
planned Of George Wilkes the editor OF that paper for
length. was set out in the complaint The plaintifs
counsel then proceeded to explain the Circumstance
when hsd ed 10 THIS IL had he said all orgn In
an attempt to extor out Of the plaintiff and be-
gan BY transaction between him and one Oapin, who
had been deauteI in some matter with him and had
preferred and obtained bill Of indictment against hra
for assault and battery his daughter. Tie
commenced criminal action, being better suited
! TO his purposes In a civil action the Jury would
have awarded him compensation for any damages
he might have suffered, but he gets criminal in
dic,nent, and endeavors to work upon the fears OF
the plaintiff for his character and says Give me 30
much money and will settle with you. But DIR.
Ruckman afraid and requested the tment
might be and before three judges in the
OF Special Sessions common assault had been proved
the could disregard the solemuity the
oath deed, trivial did the matter that they
had not gone into the defence and the three judges had
awarded a fine of the monstrous sum of ten dollars
Capln thus failed in his attempt at extortion aud then
came three four anonymous letters to Mr. Ruckman
Then Lexow the defendant, is found gon to the plain
connection with him Mc Ruckman had disregarded
these attempts then appears article in the Police
Gazette under the head os Law lnteigence-Triai Of
Elisha Ruckman. Sc, &cn Upon this he went to the
Office Of Geo. Wilkes, WHO editor Of that paper aud
convicted hbeller-now fugitive from justice in a
foreign country, aud who did not stand in very
envabe position before this community. Wilkes had
then asked him why ne had not eOne up before lie
said he had not come up for such purpose Them
he wanted TO know who the author Of that
false ana scandaous libel Mr.. Barrett (couase
for the prosecution by Capin) mad made no such
offer Of proof ALLEGED the libel he had there
upon Issued his complaint against wilkes from Justice
Aountiorts count ana Wilkes, having demanded hear
ing does not attend himself by respectable counsel
bat sent Lexow there, who represents himself counsel
which he not and position which. II he had, he
would have disu a>ed lie osd then made q false and
gsbed report OF these proceedings, wnch The libel
e,mplained Of, and which By his he denied.
And they would show that he had falsely that
answer in the Special Sessions Brooklyn, he
had sworn he did write itthat he position in which
they would place him The original indictment had not
been for indecent assault AZ all stated but %:
common assault and battery and this was the fr libel
complained Of and which Justice Mountfort msappre-
hepdipg his duty certainly had dismissed because Mr.
Ruckman had refused to some questions put 10
him His duty plain and clear, to hold the defend
ant II a made out. and 20 compel the witness
TO answer any proper question he refused but not TO
take freak in his head anu dismiss he complaint. Tue
libel appeared ON the I'D June professiug TO Dc report
Of the entire proceedings before Justice Mounu)rt
but which nothing Of the sort. The defendant
esponsble fer the falsehoods according TO his
own declarations and it was not necessary that be
should written it himself caused it to be pub
sh.d every aiding connected with the pubhea-
tiOu Of libel guilty; as III murder, IL was not
c,sary the blow should be given With the accuseds own
hand lie could shield bimsef from publishing this
libel in q scurrious and infamous paper by Saying he
was employed 10y George wilkes and it was hs duty to
fun reports Of such prcc eedngs for t his duty
the truth and give all the proceedings and
not apart only We could then pursue TINS attempt
m Capln TO wilkes and from Wilkes to Lexow, u get
money Of EuckInap. but his character was not
such slight foundation that he was obliged to buy
obtr OF them he not AFRAID to submit that TO any
jury in the State where he resides In the answer the
defendant sets cut that he reporter, &c, and that
he published the complaint and copy Of the proceed
iDgs, and that that report was true lie Mr kussel)
contenced taere was no such thns az PN'sSeu Dei,
Ter; it virtually saying that Mr. Wilkes had hired
him publish hbes ana lies Of that they could
get black mail of He further said that he had
noInng do with the description Of the person. Sc As
it appeared there but he had sOleinny sworn that
that he had delivered IL to the pfiateis The
answer further weLt en- to allege the truth OF
the report partly from his own knowled<e, and had
put in issue that the plsintG man OF bad charac-
ter uPon that they prepared to meet therl Also
that the plantlI, knosing who tie author OF
that report had asked him (t1e deendant for the ntor
nation and had undertaken not to take any steps, civil
or criminal founded upon it. aud that he bound by
that ~ pua,on This they said, another fait hood
The alleged undertaking stated to have been given
the "a Augustwhen on the 9th CT that month"; the
plaintiff the defendant board the ferry boat,
end oaded by the injury be had sustained and knowing
the defendant to be the author had taken the law into
his own hands and committed assault on him for
which he had been condemned to pay Sl450 damages
He would ask them OF families, how they would
estimate the injury that had been done Mr. Ruckman,
and called upon them to give such damages as marx
their sense Of it, and set the pubic right, when
an account OF their verdict appeared IN lespec'ss
papers-in places where that Infamous sheet had
been published II they failed In making out
their justification IL would enhance the dsnages
The freedom of the press and ought TO be great
but when il made the tool Of extorting money from
tie mid and anwsry, the only way to curb It, was by
extracting from them the money which they had thus
Mr. sehaer here wished ask how much ofthe alleged
libel u ey wsre TO def. themselves against they
not answtrable for the original publication Of state
ment contained in the affidavit Of the plaintiff himself
and which he had published by hliDg.
Mr. Clark said he original libel had been ingeniously
repuLlished by the reporter. The affidavit was made
to tring b'er to justice as the plaintiff had right
10 do, they had right to re-publish II in an OBJ
aud fcurrlous print, il not done for good
purpose. lie coniended that the whole article was
lbelous. A discussion this ensued and the Court
ruled that the original libel might be taken flse
and excluded the offer Of any evidence ~ to whether
Mr. Barrett had made such oIer OF not; as not af
fectng the present case, connected with the eeen
dant. Mr. Clark would first call evidence a. 70 tha
publication by the defendant, and called M Russell,
who objected to the ground Of interest and ask
ed a. preliminary question by Mr.. Schaner, whether
the plaintiff had not made " him his Interest In
any veidct be might obtain.
This Mr. Russell uuequivocaly denied and having in
reply SIR. Clark, said that there no foundation
whatever for such question proceedel with his testi-
meny. lie had attended before Justice smith In
Brootlyn, in August, and }uestioned the defendant
opposed article and he ssid be hal Thought be
put the question ia this form did you write compose,
or puhirh or cause 10 be published his article The
subject matter sf the examination was that Mr. Ruck
arrested. and charged with an assault and bat
terry the defendant b ard the Manhattan and the
lie. up justification mitigation Of punish
meut Had Mr.. LeAow ia the Poiioe Gazette Jfice
believed be had now the wAoe charge Of IL Objected
to Mr. Clark said " not lateral, and prceedci l.
The date of the paper containing the libel June ~
1850. AT that time be had seen hr LeSow at that Of
fee and reporting about the courts, had seen him In
company With Wilkes pretty often che office was in
Nassu street did Lot know any one ee connected with
the paper ~ reporter
Odd you know stsnley (Obecsed to.)
Mr. Clark stated the object to prove Lexow's con-
nection Question Afterwards withlrawn, " being
admitted the pleading that he the reporter Wit
ness attended tho Court of Special Sessions nr Ruck
counsel: did take notes of the trial. did not
think occupied 10 minues stood side by side before
Recorder without jury, and remembered al that took
place. Indictment produced and admitted) Mr..
Clark explained that u was Indictment for common
assault aud battery, and not fer indescent assault
alleged In the libel.
dncussion here arose as to whether the indictment
laf.r. fHa afIi.tr
matter Ina the form OF affidavit The court said they
have all the papers that before the Petty Se
sions and the witness proceed,d;He thought the In
dctmsnt was there ct any rate 1t was charge for
mon assault and battery.
Q.-Wss there any such offer made by Mr.. Barrett
Objected to and ruled out.
AWss not present the trial before Justice Nouat
fort; bad known Mr.. Ruckrnau or eight years.
O-Nhat was his character
Objected 10 bv Mr. gchaTor