The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-10-11
Superior Court.
Hefore HIM Jud0a nuAp


Der. e-AcrroS ron LIBEL -Em0y Matthews rs. Moses
s. Beach and Alfred s. Beach-This was an action for an
alleged libel contained In paragraph which appeared
that assault committed In Broadway o respect
able named Peter ~ Horsley BY two emgraut rua-
down and grossly matreated him The paragraph also
stated that complaint made against the parties,
but Justice Lothrop refused to issue
case would come before the Mayor The plaintiff denies
the grounds for the accusation and sontends that the
paragraph calculated to iujure his reputation 0a
images laid at $lce0 On behalf Of the defence Mr.
James Brady contends that the circumstances de-
tailed . matter Of news, and that the defendants
being total strangers to The plaintiff wsIs not actua,ed
til said II true that Tree prets Is the great pala
dum of our liberties but when is prostitutsd is
Of greatest evils lie went to show that malice in
Law the doing Of thing knowing IL Is wrong and the
defendants in this case were called upon and told that
the .ccwaton was wrong and though they promised to
put In . correction, they did not do 90,
The Court charged that the plaintiff entitled to
cover under the esdngs and the only question for the
jury was 20 the amount Of damages they should nud
one point which the defendants rely in mitigation Of
dsmages II that the plaintiff unkn to the defend
sna lhst rney we're no. 20 ~ m.l,ad
that legal malice might be inferred from the circum
Of the IN the absence Of personal knowledge
Of the parties and without the proof Of express malice
The effect ual mode TO sustain the freedom Of the
press is punish Its lcentouness aud the Court knew
q stronger proof its than the read
ness vii which the press sezes upon every
which Is alleged to have taken place ia police Office
elsewhere cscusted to ipure the reputation Of the ci.
and publishes II without taking the pains tn inquire
into Its truth Mr. James Brady on the part OF the
d.feRdsnt excepted to the Judges charge The jury
after short time brought in verdict fos the planth
Of $500 damages
Before Hon Judge Campbell
Der. o.-Ths .9lairc Uosks MuTfck ~ Chaplin -
This action for the Of 81 400 the value Of
steam condenser air pump and other machinery. sup
piled by the plaintiff TO the defendant for the propeller
Hartford. On part Of the defence is coneneed that
the machinery was imperfect aud not accordiog to
specification; that the steam condenser did not answer
TIE purpose and was obliged TO be removed from the
v.sfel, on he voyage. as II would no, work.
! Charles W. Copeland engineer, deposed that he hal
been cted with the Aare Works for ak years In
The manufacture OF steam engines; there in lsi9
the def. ndspt gave ORDERS for steam condenser. air
pump. &c for the propeller Hertford the price be
thought s10 but could not positively say without
his m, sndun; fsnced when got through the
work that 10 was worth the agreed upon; I
present when Mr.. Chaplin wanted the company TO
cute the order for 81, 80 and said 10 impossible
r. do TO ard ultimately took the order for Z think
81 4Ce (hook prtduced) can say that the item
tl,4t0 is the sum agreed on by Mr.. Chaplin for the
work.
On cross examination the witness said the comp my
bought certain portions Of the machinery from other
parties cannot say whether they have been paid for
NOT. Adj, urned.
Ger I0-Mr d. Lord having summed up behalf Of
the defendant and MIR II. y. Clark, for the plaintiff toe
Judge, charged the jury, who rendered verdict for
psint for the amount sought With interest," $1,000 3D.