The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-12-18
Ths M.re.. III. agency C.s..
, U. 9. CIRCUIT COURT.
Before Hon, judge Beta.


Ts,psn This case Is one Of crest interest % the com
Ssn s 3. Go sss are %
Ohio, against Lewis fsppsn, for libel against their
issue this paper This has the court for
the last three weeks-Messs. Ogden Hoffman and Y. b
nor ana B. r Butlsr counsel fort dsfendsut mum
Der Of witnesses examined in open court and the
written testimony Of more than sixty witnesses residents
dence upon the admission Of which evidence, number
of questions Of Law were argued By the counsel at great
court three days, and another consumed four days
Both counsel each side addressed the jury in
mens. IN full thew contained an unusu. degree OF
legal learning and ability, but suffice IL TO say
that their delivery occupied nearly Eve days.
The defence urged that the PLAINTIFF had failed TO
prove Emslcs; that Mr. Tappan had received the al
edged sanderous matter in good faith and given it 70
denes that va. civ given s in manner for lawful
purposes and thst the defendant stood in very dfe
C. one .no woI'd , psocn
libel referring to Beardsey should have weight,
the action was brought by II Beardsley = Co, as q
fact and the differences drawn in the libel
were the natural inferences from those facts; that Mr.
libel and could aot have been actusted BY malice and
such charge was monstrous. The defendant further
urged that the plaintiffs had no claim for damages. be-
cause tne credit 1t home was proved not to have been
impaired by the libel. and in New York they only
refused small amount Of goods that the report suits
being instituted against the firm true from the
PLAINTIFF own testimony and it also true
that Mrs ardsley shout to ale bill for divorce
It was also true that Mr. Beardsy thought of put
ting his property Of his hands urged
That there was publication only the clerks
scrbers to the agency had the of the alleged libel
II it was lawful for one to carry the business 1t
was lawful Tor two to carry IL The business
too large for the defendant carry it alone On
the other hand the plaintiffs asked the jury consider
what inference they would have drawn they read the
report in the books Of Mr. rsppaD that it all tended
Besrdsey, they affirmed that their store would soon
close The attack against them in their business
pacity The natural inference was that the house
embarrassed, which entirely false That Mr. Tappan
persisted In keeping on the books after he spprsed
OF its falsity, and reiterated the libel by subsequent
SANDER The publication was perfect because not only Mr.
Tappan and his clerks read but all the subscribers and
their clerks could have it, Mr. Tsppan had raised des-
posm and claimed deal the characters OF his fellow
the whole country exempt from legal liability
lie received pay for bis information and he ought to be
aid tbst It rss most p;os.Ss thsa as 600 xs noa
imbure them before all the expenses Of the suit were
paid they might have to to the Supreme at
Washington and the Jury ought to add enough hold
Mr.. Tappan example to the community, we'll as
the plaintiffs for loss Of business and injury
to their feelings They desired no compromised verdict
At the close Of the argument the Judge delivered his
charge, of which the following is the substance
CHARGE JURY.
The time occupied by this trial may dispropor-
tonate to the question in discussion An apology can
be found in the nature Of the controversy 1t ques-
ton ofimportaDce to the commercial community, and
new questions Ct law to be decided The be.
slowed by eminent counsel shows their estimation Of its
cples Of law well established and facts not novel In their
nature The action for libel for written slanderous
ed BY one Of the psrtper came TO New York; there wa.
an agency kept by that agency kept books
on which were entered these remarks:--"Juy, ls4s -
Has been sued Report that Bsardseys wife has
filed bill Of divorce Sc 40" These plaintiffs reel
dents of Norwalk Huron county, Ohio On arriving
here John Beardey tried to discover whence these
ports and traced them to the books of Tappan
Suffice 1t to say, that action for libel instituted
in this court 1t gave the names position Of plaintiffs,
and then the Islander The reading Of the declaration
as to the SANDER and the in book not the
The question arose from ths-whether declaration
fources and sufficiently stated to be foundation Of
suit Whether 1t was supported in substance and ef
CURED to prove the identical words used by defendant in
the sander After alleging composition and publication
plaintiff sets his damages for the injury only Injured
In law but In special damages that there persons
who refused TO trust them In words actiona Of them
selves II plaintiff claim special damages it h necessary
to set forth how he has received injury Those damages
in way marked defined He must set forth the
damages in declaration, and the be fol-
lowed By proof The shape Of the declaration is good
and entities the party to Toe plea not
euilty" In law SANDER Is wrong, and the plea
be, mot guilty" If he shows that the words used in
truth, he must so state .peciacsiy. The dssndsns
that the reports circulated Nervalh and
they we're true Then he attaches another, that they
vilsged to give them to the community Plaintiffs have
shown, after pr owing the words were snx ce action.
tbsy sere n aI sn mot ina
published inter tonslly passed from the composer to
any other person not entitled to them The plaintiffs mus.
rrbotim, as 1t vas read to him They show tina. this
writing not In possession exclusively of the defend
others in the ONCE who had access TO the book tina.
these either saw the report or heard read Th Ia su
hcient publicrtion in law. nMr Douglass alone it,
there IN NH ltrair nGfan Aauf lsu
thing before you TO qualify this fact Suppose this
naked Islander, without justhcati then, 1t pub
fit published by person under him II is enough
or be sanctioned the PRONUNCIATION after IL IL done IL Is
CROUCH. Here then, rs no fair question Of doubt The
words injurious TO man In his trade ssndsrous
and actionablen The law protects the pursuits Of
suite II has been contsnded that II defendant prove
there were reports circulated in their place Of residence
son who repeats these ISLANDERS must prove their truth
Upon principle, IL IL not permitted to man TO be the
medium Of Islander he takes upon himself to repeat
this report In Norwsik 10 no defence; but can
be give II to you in mitigation Of damages is the emily
artnershp and for injuries 10 their business and not
juriss TO them individually; and you cannot give
dsm'gs, for indvidus Islander, unless you and thet
saipst one Of them injured the credit Of the business
IL the defendant clothed with privilege and does that
privilege embrace this particular act This agency
established since twelve years ago II possible this
agency has done good and has perhaps Ear been
Quoted with propriety The Court has already said II
commendable and for which defendant ought
ceive reward for services. The ordinary method In
Europe wss TO obtain information from
or to send special messengers to the towns Of their
toners This agency expense, and tends to pro-
mote the business Of the country Instead Of waiting
letter to BE- sent and replied TO- this agency supplied
already with tbs information, By correspondence Who
keep them ported up with information to traders
This IL feature Of the plan In the msuagement Of
IT, difficulties will like the present; and Is the de-
PENDANT shieded! All persons who subscribe to the
sgency obtain Information In respect to their
omers IL IL ssid that defendant cannot be protected,
becauie he receives compensation This does not
sound and fair view IL would make q difference
person sent specially, who received q compensa-
ton; would II matter two merchants or more
socsted and egreed 10 send agent The protection
would be the same In both So far the plan Of
bp'i,ss Is CONCERNED meters not wh:ther there yes
one, 6hy, t sbundred The question Is not no xever