New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-12-19

Gaze as matter Of news and were thereupon 'usd ior
libel The ease is not yet adjudcatel
Time would fsil 70 tell Of the cases in which men
accused Of larceny. obtaining vauabes by false pre-
tenses Sc &c have sued us Tor libel each o. them
necessarily swearing 10 q declaration which he must
hive known Tlrolvo9 him in the guilt o. moral perjury
that's. accusing Us OF wlfully and maliciousiy
CONSUMING 10 delame aud ipiure him. when he must
have known that was lie. Cu'ry-What sort OF con
sciences must tie lawyers have who draw up these
deearntcns aud induce their clients to sign and swear
to them
One Of the last cases We have encountered is this
Two riys inventors of Sewing Machines have adyer
tisel in our columns each claiming that his rivals
chine ia an infringement on some other. These adver
tisements bad not attracted our attention until we were
served with writ on behalf of one of the advertisers,
recurring to respond to his claim of several thou
sand dollars for libel We don't know the gentleman
who has bestowed on us this evidence OF his magnani
nifty, but he knows that we never consciously did him
spy harm and We should like to look him in the face
when be swears that we had wickcdly and malicious
" lbeled him at time when we had never written
said nor thought any thing about him. The person who
did libel him If any body did is understood to be
abundanty responsible and to be very willing to meet
on action in tie case but he is passed by in order to
let Gy at US.
What we object TO- be it understood, is perversion
ana abuse of the Law of Libel whereby it is brought TO
bear upon persons who VIGOROUSLY have not been guilty
of libel but who are only constructivey or by imPca
ton guilty Of Whist is termed legal malice. II words
were allowed their proper force, the plaintiff not the
defendant in these suits would be adjudged guilty of
legal malice.
We rejoice at the recent judgment in the ease Of
TIy against Bennett because that admirably tried
ly Judge Oakley seemed to be conducted throughout
in accordance with the dictates of common sease
Tie plaintiff proved not merely the persistent use of
defamatory and injurious language by the defendant
with respect TO the plaintiff but be proved also
press malice on the part Of the former toward the
lateIa settled purpose to injuTe and break him down
Here is the essence of bel-ofered to he proved by
the plaintiff resisted to the utmost by the counsel for
the defend nj and most rghteOusly admitted by the
Court-the defendants counsel insisting that proof
could net be given Of express or actual but only of
constructive or illegal malice" We wish it were
aicags not merely permitted but required that the
plaintiff should prove such malice inierenialy if not
directly or forego the presumption Of its existence
And when the Editor of journal is found yelling
malicious hatred and settled purpose to crush under
pretense of Independent criticism or censorship we
hold that he not only be guilty OF libel but that he
is far more guilty, and deserves severer punishment,
than the poor blOckbead who posts scurrilous lam
noon on barroom door and is held to answer for it
in o court OF Justice