New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-12-12

u. S. CIRCUIT COURT.-Before Judge
Belts -Beardsiey VS.. Leto,s Iappan.-A Witness Com
united 10 the custody Of the Marshal for CoafsgPf Of
Cotsyt-Ths cause, which has been before the Court
for some DAYS past, came for further hearing on
Wednesday morning, and upon the Judge taxing ms
seat he at once proceeded 10 give judgment on the
question urged yesterday by counsel tor the PLAIN
uds that certain witness be required TO answer
the question propounded and to which counsel for
defense argued for an exemption. The words 80
clearly and concisely given by the Judge presiding
will however convey better idea OF the case than
We are willing 10 attempt. His Honor commenced
BY remarking nearly as follows
Yesterday in the progress of this Benjamin Doug.
las witness the defense was asked the question In
the year 9as had Mr. Lewis Tsppan any agent or cores
pendent in the town Horwalk Huron County, state 81
Ohio I" The witness declined answering the question pc
cause Il would crimnate him on charge of lndictabe
misdemeanor The counsel for the plaatliS insisted ON
the answer being enforced The legal rule tra VINES
cannot be required question which tends 20
G. inmate HIM Of crime or InisdsmsanorE Wendell
Cowan Hills Notes 7sC and 1871 Roscoe, aa III, and
Whar,on's Criminal Law, 2is A man Is subject 20 IN
dcfmen and punishment for nli,demeanor ~ he publishes
aTau.t other false and malicious libel without good
motives A publication does not carry with y q
criminal oense To admit publication OF that the oe'
is false state matters conducns 20 prove these facts
would not constitute an irdictaoe ohense. They must
however be both proved n order toc9nyics hn indicted
and accordingly the confession of them or the giving by
his nony facts tending TO prove either particular
yeton hs ppr1ies that eo@Psedro
answer question IS TO rnlsh single link IN the chan
of eyideEce tending 10 esaonsa me oiense asans MN.
let Bu,rs Tna, 2i3 4.h Wendell. 2)y me exception
does depend the inquiry Mne,LI vi
statements under the inteIogst9ry would De lega es
deuce ON his indictment tral but whether they night
furnish an ingredient toward the OIL sse vna
proois leading To his conviction Sll lie nus answer
INQUIRIES extfaneOus TO questions VI his own quit and re-
Eating % Ta.!sr' rot ga Bun % 1o1s
and s By the Superior Court Of this state ith Wendell,
sa Th Ss " Is ss ssa dcy N SS Of
the rule Praetioally-o Day a: p 20. AZ ne an
witness TO determine whether the question proposed may
draw from him admissions which he is privileged from
NAB Bss Ila ss Inc oen; o, Inc hs. SSsr
the exemption and to screen MN from any course Of eH
ANIMATION which NAV expose ha 70 cri,a,nat mate hmssM
Roscoe, III ~ Win ms pnacipie as suiae ana VIA h
the best lights ffnlshed b the case as presented .he
0oaLt us TIE fas, ~ Dol IN his esse
show that the lbelous matter on when thIs acton
ierdant The witness was al the tune ms and
managing clerk and he saads legally mILcted IN tns
Defendants Office ard a. ms agent, ~ communicating
20 has associate derks or persons applying al the once
The question propounded 10 witness here has no relation 70
transactions the oce Of the defendant or within ths
CITY 10 the connection % the witness with the publ
he dsferdanl gent OHIO and whether the incl
Gus charges Tosn that agent IL also aYened ~
com ection add IN acts between the
deecdsnt and his agents since ms action was instituted,
or since tie intention 10 bring was announced showing
malice t0w ard the plaintiff The Immediate quss
uoa objected 20 certainly entirely remote from Ae VT
RS, s he can legal sense be implicated bT the fact
that particular person vas the agent OF me defendant an
Ohio nor discern relevancy IN the course Of in'
promised by the fafnt{O any art WHICH tue WI
ness nav have committed partc paed IA respecting hs
publication the Libel here or is concocon OK compost
uon IN Ohio. For suppesLg lie inded the correspond
snce IN behalf Of the defendant the agent there and
was c0szan Of and approved all the IN oho
N relation the subject his testimony 20 the personal acs
o, Of the defendant in respect 20 tins
ton would no way tend 10 sub ec the witness hlsen
20 a criminal prosecution Such acts or deciafau2s al
be 90 more than secrets Of the defendant emf ~
witness The Law does no. protect hin fioi1 us -
such secrets He stands nOvsy responnois ~ Jaw ~
acts oi defendant committed personally .. " ~ ce.
shTo,d In cass the defendant prosecuted Iof cos
,riracy AGAINST the plaintiff the Court Solla Ptfcs, =, L.
~. at,on might lead disclosures teE1i1{ 70 II
uicars he vita rs with such conspiracy hru S -, So
r.Ifv rs declining on oath that ne cs.la tssh - ~
&C., xybch you'd no, have teedeney 70 coh,ct an. ~
ths osrsn.e BUt the position OF the Wthe'- "a
~ 80 = not xuch that the Court can psrrelfe hs
asd an TO tssfy 70 what any way tends 70 efIn
s,S nv ..atng the acts OF de ,4ratsns VI we os'sh1
az ~ oue,tion propcunded TO him. therefore most az
cordInsly be 4ns~sreo -. .u.;, c.iIad ,rou the
stand. and the question repeated ~ MI. Cemlhsi
cornsel FOR plaintiffs, to which the witness oecu
ling an answer desiring at the same time 70 e1-
5isin 10 the Court hs position. lie said was VILE
been regret that ne felt himself driven by impenous
nece,sity 10 refuse obedience TO the oroef OF tae
Count HIS respect for the Judge personally aside
from duty or otfice) was very great out haring ma
t,,rely delbeFated on the question Pfopoundeo, ne
had come 70 the conclusion TO decline an enswer
When he first went into the employment Of MI
levi, Lappan, ths, gentleman required 's'sAA