New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-10
Court Of Common Pleas .FRIDAY, Feb l.

Before Judge Woodruff.
T01lor. Hale g. Murd0;k VS.. Sheldon L.
Church. Action by merchants at Columbus
Miss against mercantile agent, for publishing
notice concerning them, in connection with q
number of other houses, in what was called
"Church's Reports" This case was concluded
The Court, in its charge, stated that any person
is free to write and publish of another whatever
is true and no action can be sustained for 1t IN
civil court. A person requested by an individual
interested in the business or otherwise OF another
TO afford inform alton, is privileged to answer SAID
request, confdentially, and although the state
ment NAV be true, if he does not show it to
third party, and he honestly believed what ne
wrote to be true, he is not responsible.
If a person volunteers to write in regard to
another, and what he states is untrue, he Is
equally liable with the one who publishes.
In regard to the present case, it was SAID MIR.
Church was employed by 80 firms to proceed
West, and give information as to business men,
the names Of several of which, in whom the par,
ties were interested were handed TO him. Had
Mr. c. confined himself to writing, as to those
parties, as respects each case, to the particular
house which required information as to that In
dividua it would have been privileged but he
was not authorized, in law, unless true, TO com
municate to the whole 80 information as respected
the whole of those about whom he was 70 In
quire, as each Of the IS were interested only In
particular parties. ~
As the claim here is for publishing, and not
writing the letter, if be was privileged to write
under the above rule and others betrayed MS
confidence, if they did so by publishing, he is not
liable
damages, if any, will be the pecuniary amount OF
injury done their firm. Sealed verdict THIS lore
noon.
Halstfad and HqIstead, VS.. Geeley TO recover
a claim to which a discharge under the two third
act was set up, already referred to- The Jury
could not agree, and were discharged
Court Of Common Pleas. SATURDAY Feb 8.
Straus vs.. Magic recover $1,000 and inter.
est alleged TO have been lent, but deemed al
ready referred TO- Verdict for plaintiff, sl,3l9.
Court Of General Sessions. FRIDAY, Feb
Before the Recorder and AID. Franklin and Dooiey
TTfal for Forgery IN the Second DegTee--Da-
vid CraIley. an old acquaintance of the Court,
who has served one term In the state PRISON, Tor
n similar offense was tried and convicted OF for
gery in the second degree in forging the following
order and attempting 70 pass the same: III,
evening and viii call on you and the same have
beeu buying liquors ard an SIS short-end oohge,
O''N JOHN HARRl SON, Northern Hotel:
The Court sentenced him to the State PRISON. lot
wears and months.
'TJiol for Grand Larceny.-A young man
named Richard NJ. Chapman was tried on an Ia
misunderstanding him with grand larceny, in steal
inc about 5000 from bis employer, Thos. Evans dry
goods merchant, of e. Catherine St. From tne
evidence adduced it appeared that the prisoner
was in the employment Of Mr.. Evans Tor some
months previous to the commission OF the iSrceny'
after which he was discharged. Soon after bis dls
charge it was discovered that sundry money bags
kept in the desk bad been riAed Of part OF their
contents Mr.. Evans employed officer JosePhs,
who arrested the accused, who confessed MS
guilt and accompanied Mr.. Evans TO the bowely
Savings ank where he had about $3.50 dePosIeea9.
He bad lost bis book but gave an order 10. Sn.s
amount to Mr.. Evans. There was no P T"a farv
he hadtaken more than s25 at one time. The Jury
therefore convicted him of petit larceny and re-
commended him to the mercy Of the Court. o1SP.
man was remandsd for sentence. ADJOURNED iO'
the day.