New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-03-24

Tie defendant q; ib,-ty when saed or SANDER IN
puuns ne oaen.e 70 sag- Re eAs. that the piSsz
ncersd m sstmatas damages; but such proof noi a
sfroute oetense 1acff IN such ea-e ~ entitei %
suthoriEe any falsfy and naeOsly d-faz,e tim
with inpurify.
With thee genera remarks viii call vvzr attention 70
&c sorcs sPoteu N tins car, re>rvIns my views %
vhether was pr1vies communicated 1ni The nature
Of the accusation has been considered
As genera rule words spoken are b construed By
CoCts and Jures according their nstzrA and obvious
meaning II they susceptible OF two Interpretations
nputnG enr1e. or unworthy coadarf Of persia
hs tsde or occupation and the other rot n. jury
to determine how they were designed and eaeusted % De
Where they ,r. ambiguous or Of Doubtful import the
Jury must ind their meaning By the st Of the crcrsea-
ees attending The sessns Of them Is disclosed % the evi-
deDce
One part Of the eh4-ze tia, Mr.. Fovles rs, be-
cone such potor1ous liar that could pnce t-e or no
coufDce IN him When you h.ve the fact that he had
been scne two yesr.th elek Of Bowen McNanee and
b-n IN the busnes offs clerk hese words spoken
to the man N hese employ he t1en snd with svew to
the eject that ther letter have produced
siding him 70 obtain the situation he then had. yoa viii
y BY the Ghf thrown upon the speaking OF the words By
thee and Other attending faets proved % yuur Acton,
in what they dessred sid calculated be
derSood-
The popular meaning Of tie word nourious under
stand II, is publicly knowu-mznifes, 70 the worGev
dert" IL IL comronly used III = notorious
thief notorious crime rsn notorious for hls
lewdne.s o. rsrce. Whether that It's mesa-
ING viii Was II used IN thaf sense n tins IN
stance and % D 50 unoersood WIS desyned
such liar that he hsd the gener reputifon Of being
ha II designed ard calculated to convey the IDEA that
be had scdured with the pubic the reputation o. n0to
liar that tins bis general Character that u DID not
relate bis conduct eerk, tnt that sch being his
ersl reputation. Men, merely on account o; hHrep
utston could psee Fite or confidence IN hiz then
they would not h sctonabe uness you satisfied that
the house Of Wood of Cincinnati. discharged him IN
quenoe Of the speaking Of the wor IL satshed that be
did dscharre him that sccount then the defendant; La
ble even tbs; construction Of the wOrdA un-ess the
charge proved 70 he true, or the communication
rrivi ard made good tzth.
1.-THE house Of George Wood would have charged
him which claimed they DID but for ths speaking Of
tho.e words and r. fact. they actually discharged him.
and discharged him N eonseueuce Of tis communication
then sPeca damage proved although you may End they
would have dcharged him Ct subsequent period no saeh
COMMUNICATION hsd been made. Were the words de-
psned and calculated to be Understood meaning that he
duties eert thar his lying notorious 90 his employ
ard Others employed IN their establishment and that
for this they could place hite no confidence in
HIM Ifthsis the which they desi zned and
eAculaed BE- understroi then they charge hlm with
misconduct IN connection WITH ms occupation u the
charge this and II such conduct would render hun
unworthy o. employment elerh, then the words are a.
orshe without proof OF any SPECIAL damage and the de-
noGnt liable unless he has proved the charg- % BE- rn.
or unless be 10 protected By the communication BEING
privileged ore and not shown have been made
teously or rom improper motives.
viii now explain TO You what understood BY PRIV
iersd Words spoken cO1fdentisy
advice ssked or IN answer inquiries 20 tho
character or eompeterey Of former servant clerk
privileged and addition 10 proof the speaking OF the
words plaintiff must show that the defendant spoke lem
w
OF proyirg this on the plaintiff II jury sat SIZED that
the statement not made IN good fdth vas known
to BE- false any ofs material parts or wa made 70 an
f. personal malice. then the claim thar "A IL privileged
Communication Is Of avail The interests Of society
require, snd the law allows former master employer
to state freely 10 one having an inter It IN knowing he
truth when done conhaenaly and in good faith Whist ne
knows believes conoernnE the character Of former ser
want or clerk, without beiuE punished by islander sn
ano being ulced in damage, for do,ng The presunp
ton Of Law that he acted in good faith and unless the
CONTRARY u made 70 Appear be IL not liable.
PINT flg tie A. vii
occasion to be employed 20 malicious .snder elerkor
to shield attempt TO crafty personal mahoe
BY defamnE hun. So s party has recommend former
cerk as worth Of employ aud subsequently discovers
preslis,iLs act which, had been known. would
have induced him 20 have given the recommendations
he did it IL not only HE ght but bis duty fairy and con-
foeLty and in such 20 work no unnecessary
injury TO state fact to the person who may have EN-
poyed him such accommodation and IN making ch
statement he protected by the law othe land NO seton
lies asains, him for dong think the Law goes further
ian tbs That even party who has Improperly
ended clerk when he knew he ought no. 10 have done
IL owe. duty who may thereby have beau In
duoed employ him 10 eommuncn ATE the Truth and that
suhssquent commu cston made IN good faith. and n
the time believed be true, such case Privig
Cd that the burthen OF proof would stu be on the
paint to show malice or want Of good faith
But in such a esse much sghter evidence would be re-
CURED justify jury in finding malice or improper mo
tves when statement s made IN an'~er 10 INJURIES OF
when DO previous recommendation known a. the time 20
be untrue hsd teen made In this case the whole Of the
statement made in IL nature privileged one; and II 10
for the panth 70 satisfy you IN order 20 recover
that the defendant made the statement maheou or from
ent communication made 10 Cole To return 10 the
words they designed and calculated 20 be I'M
dersood that he had become notonOusly
sctua lar in the performance OF hn dute' IS CLERK that
h Men could place little confidence IN him; or
that he had become such actual liar IN his business thar
they could place little confidence IN him or thar he
had acquired such public reputation Of being liar That Ia
corsequeLee of that reputation they could place little or no
confidence m him
d.sisued 10 couyey-were they false " true. the
truth defence Did the defendant believe the charge 70
be true in the ia which you shall lind male
II 90 did he make the statement in good faith and IN tne
honest discharge Of what be believed 70 Be his duty II he
n he did not make it in good fAitbfhe made it or,
proper motives OF to sssfy personal nalce-he hAoe
Tn as,sr,ippr whether he acted from good motives
bad IN the discharge Of duty or from nance
Won will into consideration the whole evidence IN me
case There IL evidence usiyinE you m hnfns tnat
Bowsu knew the time Of the statement 90 Cole thar
Yove. had written ettrrs 10 merchants IN Newfork IN be-
bali Of the house Of Geo VI. Wood
In deterp the question u good "a n malice You may
eou.der the letter wTieD the def ndauts Sedge OF Il,
The extent OF bis approval dsaPpfova OF IT, ne nature
Of the lies have been toa Tar proved the rep
uaron which you shall ind he had IN their Establishment
when n become generally known there, the length OF time
that be subsequently retained and The circumstances
under which he retained the circumstance attending
their ALE sed dchArge Ohm thu payment OF hs salary %
The M OF January subsequent the evidence 10 relation %
s being known that Cse bad been 70 the establishment Of
cert Beer Nav ADD a. the other aud
b.arng on the question u the motives ~hich dictated the
,u.6kpx of the words II lind the defendant knew that
fact untrue, and that he acted from improper mo
tves then the furnishes hun protection for max
ms the esrge any defense 70 no acton. H. % the
oher hand md he acted good faith from proper mo
t,es entous dis barge OF what he believed 20
h. drty and did not know what he said 20 b false, he !,
not liable In what the Other parts Of the words
spoksp designed and calculated 70 BE- Understood
A, mpufing the charge Of eabeE1ns stealing thsii
FOODS 81 putting merely suspicion that he had done
Suspicion only that he had obtained them 0thef
hut dishonesty Ifusd and cacu sed 70 be understood 10
,b fo,n.r .en.e thsy are actonAbls without proof
specia damage in the they no sctolaoe
unless the special damage alleged proved II used asd
calculated 10 Underwood either Ia whatever
su,s you may ind they de gned and calculated 70 %
understood viii then consider Whistler there P
ce Of proof Of dishonesty cnme whether charged
or .peefed Mas this part Of the staeusnt nsde IN rood
faith In the ientOus dicharEe Of duty and oecvA
the imputAron Be tue lit the occasion on ~ncn
h. ofe then protects him. Int nor, then u does no
protect him and be- liable for speaking them you frnd
TAT thew were Kned and calculated 20 impote the es
81 sfes y OF eulbe kznE the goods Of B0Sen AeNane-
or n such you and that they n2nted slcot
ofdishcnery clerk and that sneh IN p9taof
wss hs cause Of hrs dchsrss st CiDcinna ne asis-