The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-12-18

merchant nlOne! Not AZ IL Wa put on The BOOK
Mr.. Douglass it, and one clark is proved TO have
commenced reading it. The law does not protect Mr..
Douglass. 1t is proved fact that this report was
Of the Office BY the consent Of defendant II man
and wife converse together, AID speak SANDER
eusy Of smother, in presence Of third person,
where II Is probable there Is thiri person, they
are liable to an action. The Legislature now pro-
tects the physician in Previously he was
privilege All these secret establishments are invi-
dious in their nature These agencies are increas.
ing They may soon be conducted BY of no respon
siklity unable to respond in damages This feature Of
secreey must be guarded net 10 infringe the
rights Of others In this discussion has the con-
venisnce Of the principal been consulted without sum
cent regard the rights Others Are not the latter
protected by the law well the former! My pur-
pose to lay before the principles of law and
discuss the evidence The evdences placed before you
in embarrassing manner being for the part In
deposions taken under commission When thus taken,
the party Is privileged to his legal rights, in with
holding what he deems illegal or irrelevant 1t ought
not. Therefore, to prejudice him generally. II he put
questions however calculated to prove the truth and
then refuses TO read the answers 1t is strong point
against him When he had got the proof in his hand
and refuse to read It it Is proper inference submit
70 the jury being against him In this view only the
suppression Of evidence is against party you ind
the defendant has communicated this information not
to the clerksthat he honestly believed the
true, and not for malicious motives there would
essential question but that Of sges-stil you
have right and ought to pass upon the first question
ment 10 not privileged, the plaintiffs entitled to da
Msges Did the publication prevent their obtaining
credit With the same facility Is before! Did 1t effect
any serious injury? If the publication be regarded
privileged but is false, they entitled TO the
special damages You must that they fully made
good what they lose. Has this statement been reite
rated by him after having been spprzed of its unruth
Did he put himself on the inquiry not! did be
Ssrs,s1 III 10 not giving redress ne dld IT sv
Of the wrong and he became thoroughly spprsed Of the
want Of truth it is strong evidence Of malice and the jury
defence and notice Of truth Of the libel before this ac IN
brought. We find that defen daut was informed OF
TO write and ascertain more particularly Aerwards on
9TH August, find the report confirmed, and in add
tion states other reports Was the defendant justified
to rely on the authority Of the author Of the first reports
TO their truth and then enter another statement
hrmpg the FIRST This is sggravstion Of the offence
When he takes this written and makes it
known, he becomes the author Of it. although he does
not exonerate the author The defendant had notice
that If he persisted in keeping the books
ferrcd his concern and all the evidence in the books
Mr. Douglass and another Mr.. Tsppan This is . repub
LEGATION to them and their clerks the had
written 1t all out again 1t s evidence Of unwingness
to do right towards the plaintiff and sdered in Law
as proof Of macs-ef doing what in law is infictng In
jury to plaintiffs. You must find such a verdict for
plaintiffs, with damages, become upright men. not
swayed by passion; not allowing any deal with
them unless they prepared to prove the truth AS
Stunning the defendant had proved these reports in
circulation throughout Norwalk i'm respect of one or
both ofpsintis this be considered mitigation Of
damages! The Court has said this doss not excu
pate defendant but does 1t affect the damages! There
his peadpgs that the reports true but does not so
prove It, can he put things tending prove the truth
but not proving the truth, in mitigation of In
courts OF this State the defendant has such right
This Iapprehend is distinct rule of Law 1t first came
up In case Of Cowen; 1t Afterwards confirmed in
case in Wendell According to the code in a,ton OF
libel the defendant may slege the truth and whether
he the truth he may give evidence those
circumstances which tend to prove the truth mitigate
the damages Before he fsed to justify the notice OF
truth he could not give in evidence matters which would
mitigate damages II he cannot prove the fast to be
true he prove facts which gave him ground to
suppose the reports TO be true II he can show that
there reasonable ground for him suspect that
plaintiffs we're net in good standing the jury must
slider those grounds This publication made early In
July. witness saw II on the 18th of July The de-
PENDANT could have shown when he received it IL he had
chosen he did not and have right infer IL
seen before the 18th July 1t should be evident you
that there reports were In before they
concocted sent from Norwak and after they were
returned from here II they rely those rumors as
mitigation, they ought to satefy you that they
really In circulation before they kno here. II
they were In circulation they be thau merely
whispered about limited at To be and reports
they must havresched the whole community they must
be the neghborhood talk Defendant to all him self OF
this Iumor, It must be matter OF public notoriety then
twill be no justification, but only 90 to mitigate dana
ses
The defendant excepted to several points in thi.
charge Sealed verdict.