The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-05-17
Superior Court.
Before Chief Justice Oakley


MAY 16-Thosaas c. Byc,cne Amos j. Williamson and
anothe-1his was an action brought by the plaintiff
who dry goods clerk against the propretors Of the
Sunday Daoh for alleged libel contained in a police
report in that paper 4th July 1850 given under the
head Of . robbery and arson and which charged that
Of Mr. Fellows In Spring street, 6re, and that the
premises we're piundercd Of $1,000 while Mr. r. went
excursion to the country. The article went TO
charge that suspicion fell upon connection Of the
family, who residing in the house and knew where
the money Deposited that ON Thursday be was
arrested by the police. and committed for examina-
uon HE name continued the alleged ibelous article
is Thomas Browne. lie followed the party the
cursion out Of town, and had the eirontcry to
back with them and disappointed that his vanous
scheme had failed The plaintiff In this complaint ad-
and brought before Justice Bcakley, but that full
investigation of the charges against him. he honor.
ably Discharged. Damages are laid at 5000. The de-
PENDANTS deny all malice their part and contend that
the article complained Of contained In substance true
statement Of what in reality took place before the police
justice and that the had reasonable and pro-
liable suspect and did then suspect that the
plaintiff guilty Of the crimes Of and robbery
The Judge IN charging the jury sad that propretors
furnished by their reporters II they had done
than give fair and correct report q what had taken
place at the Police ofce. they would have done right
That the transaction took place-that Browne
ID charge a arson and robbery, not denied;
hut the fact that he was discharged was omitted altoge
Their from the report and the comment that Browne had
the enontcry TO GENE back with the party and dis
appointed that his vianous scheme had failed the
part Which contained the libol complained u III how
ever the jury thought the comment enable
Jusiiftbe. the defendants not liable As respects
the amount II damsgcs should the jury 10 the
elusion a finding for the plaintiff there II culty
that point. Under the old law. II charged
ether with crime. the law would hold him responsible
e prove H. sr the Law aid be- should have dome
Unless he was prepared 70 prove ~ but the law i
char ged. and the defendants show mitigating cir
sumstances IN defence Tie difficulty alluded 70 arises
ia this case1he parties here have chosen t. form
issue. tie defendants do DOT Say the man guilty;
they ny they know uotlug e il Themselves and that
tlcie gotd ground for suspicion II the jury
IT. Wi leNs nr
rpicon they would tsso that into consideration. with
view 70 the settling u the damages. A. to malice II
often occurred 20 him. Che judge that u an editor q
paIcr publihes fishood against another person, he
ht " responsible any other in lvldual y FOR
he ~ akiug q SANDER there u no difference in tell
iug what knows 70 h. false and publishing what
de-. not krow t. b. A. L. that portion Of the de-
ffee on he ground that there no proof e malice tie
Judge ssid Il was 20 defence, becaue malice In those
was always inferred. Verdict for palntiI, $3.50
dsmages
Nav 16--Tfe91iek Jfovs ~ John Fltri9gs end Jaass
fct class THE proceeding Ia The nature II writ
IL inquiry 10 assess paints dsmsqes in consequence
~ ~ aaut ana battery alleged to nave been committed
ufon him W the defendants. The Court declined 10
bear the account Of want Of juIisdicln the de-
fendan LldridRc being resident q Barustale Mass
aud not personally served with coFy Of this
in Tho action.
71.onas UfaerwB,, - Olr,r Cqrk--The defendant in
this ease trers hotel Or lodging house ~ Chan'ers
street and The 81 the plaintiff ~ this city In
arch 1850 from Orange county to follow ~. business
n clerk and on BIS arrival here took w hls logging
~ efendants house and alleges that De pat ~ trunk
n n q defendant snd that " wns lot and brings
bs y, tion the los ~ tho trunk estimating Ne ls-
alout go The defence u, that the trunk taken
away ~ the ton a the pninti On The conclusion ~
~ ~, opy tho Jrdge intimatiYg that Il va tery
whether the Tlant could recover without
producing i.s - witness writ o. haIsss cs,pus
was therefor, grated, 70 bring tho young Into
court Tho vrI was directed % the keeper II the city
prison The yonng .an has been lately taken ~. Il
CONS and rsnfned in tNe Tombs The IT the plain
TN having appeared aud eing examined deposei that
IL did not take the trunk ind did not know what had
Lscome II IL. Verdict for pLNntlni boo.
Tqr Wv CoSsrfrrrrc~ ~ MsnyLAvp--The MARYLAND I
Constitutional Convention has c,sd IT. laburs aud the
constitution will BE- submitted - The popular vote
sfy in June n provides for the eection by the people.
"a III state and county officers abolisbes imprisonment
fCr debt end provides for the representation u the state
the House II Assembly Ivy which Baltimore city anu the
pcTulous counties adjacent will have majority There
q ocnsdestle doubt whether IL will BE- ratified the
mailer counties oppose redrciioD Of their representa-