The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-12-15
The Fry Case and the Verdict.

Some years ago we made certain charges
against Mr.. Fry, then manager of the italian
opera. The latter instituted legal proceedings
against us for the libel; we pleaded the truth
of our statements. Last week the cause was
brought to trial, and yesterday verdict was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against
US, for ten thousand dollars
We do not desire to cast the slightest reaec-
ton on the jury, or to embarrass whatever le-
gal proceedings may be taken hereafter by the
counsel concerned in the case. Many portions
of the trial afford scope for discussion, and we
may review them at some future period. For
the present we are simply anxious to draw pub
lie attention to two points, which seem to in
volve higher considerations than the mere pc
cuDiary issue ola lawsuit.
To sum up in few words the charges for
which we have been condemned we accused
Mr. Fry Of being incompetent to manage an
opera, of maltreating his artists, and Of admit
ting to his house persons who should not have
been there. The witnesses Rosi, Benedict and
Maretzek swear positively to the first tact
charged; and Mr.. Fry's incompetence is further
shown by the evidence of others, who testi-
fly that in respect of the selection of his singers
and his chorus, he committed fatal errors. The
testimony of Trufi. Benedict, Pico-Viett and
Foster establishes that the intercourse between
Fry, the manager, and his artists was not of
such nature as to conduce to cordial CO
operation; that he dealt with them harshly,
quaIrelled with the leading members of his
company, and wantonly attempted to destroy
the professional standing of his prin,a donna.
Revoil-whose veracity was unsuccessfulIy i'm
peached-and Suydam swear that they saw
persons at the opera who would not be admitted
to the respectable theatres Of any city, No
evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to con-
trovert the statements Of these witnesses In
one single instance-that of Revoil--an at
tempt was made to discredit the defendants
testimony Three FreDchmen were procured
to swear that he was not to be believed, and
that all the taiors of New York complained of
his not paying their bills Fortunately for the
witness, men who had known him for years
and ON whose character no suspicion rests. tes-
tilted to his character for veracity and his
tailor readily vouchsafed for his honesty. and
admitted that be had been paid to the
uttermost farthing. The defendants evi.
dence was therefore uncontradicted. On
the face Of it, it would seem fully to
warrant the structures which gave rise to the
libel. The faults imputed by this journal to
Mr.. Fry, if really committed, were of such ma
ture as to call imperatively for the censure of
the press credible witnesses swear that they
were committed; and yet for uttering that cen
sure, we are condemned to pay ten thousand
dollars.
We believe that this verdict is pregnant with
matter for calm thought and reflection among
the people Of this community. 1t is hardly
necessary for us to observe that it shall not pre-
vent our continuing, as heretofore, to express
what truths we shall deem it wholesome and
proper to state. 1t is not in the power of any
constituted authority on earth to abridge our
ght Of free speech, or to absolve us from our
duty Ct telling the truth at all hazards.
The verdict Of yesterday is muAh more tr-
fing misfortune to us than an east wind would
have been three weeks ago. But if peculiar
Circumstances enable us to pursue fearless
course, in spite OF yerdcts contrary to law and
evderce, it is not SO with others. The fine i'm
posed upon us would have crushed many jour
mails, and rulned many honest and enterprisng
newspaper proprietors. On their behalf-for
our case may be theirs to-morrow-we protest
against the verdict. We protest against the
practice Of bringing to bear against newspa-
per tried for libel, all the prejudice, oil the ca
lunnies. all the private ISLANDERS, which, fit has
been fearless and outspoken in its past career