The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-12-08
TIE GREAT OPERATIC CASE.
Persecution OF the New York Herald by
sngnor Fry, late Manager OF the Aston
Place Opera.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Before judge Oakley.

sAgnor Fry, late Manager OF the Aston
SUPERIOR COURT.
Before Judge Oakley.
DxC 6At the opening of the Court on Tuesday morn.
ing Chief Justice Oakley said that he had come to the
coneuson in regard the right Of parties to open and
Close the that the pAn should open according
the usual practice in trials of this kind This conclusion
he had arrived as after sutston with his brethren
On the subject Where the plaintiff had any evidence
Offer or where from the nature of the action he may
evidence to offer there he has right open the case
THIS was the principle he should adopt in the trial OF this
Mr. Jordan proposed to read from the arst column Of
the second page of l. he HERALD.
Mr. Brady oesirsd to know his object.
Mr. Jordan-herey TO prove the circulation of the
HERALD, and the income derived from it.
MIR Brady objacted to the introduction of the paper
two grounds-that the defendant in no connected
with The herald ny proof and because it was irrelevant
Mr.. Jordan-Doss the gentleman to say that the
purchase Of this paper the counter is sufficient
proof that James Gordon Bennett is ts editor and pro
Judge Oakley his name the paper
Mr.. Jordan Yes.
The Csrt ordered it to be read under exceptions taken
Mr. Jordan sccort lngly proceeded to read statement
from it. informing advertisers and business people gene
rally that the HERALD had larger circulation THAI all
the other newspapers in New York and that its annual
rsceipts amounted to $500 900. Mr. Benefits
printed upon it as its editor and proprietor
After the reading of this statement Sheridan Corbyn
was called the stand and examined by Mr. Jordan
counsel for plaintiff He testified as follows
Q, Are yoa acquainted with Mr.. Maurice Strakosch1 A.
q. Where is he? A In Cincinnati, Ohio.
Cross examined by Mr. Brady--whsn did you see Mr.
Strakosch last A. About six weeks ago
Q. WhsreS A. In the city Of New York, think; am
@ How do you know that he is in CrcnnahP A. His
wife told me
Q. When did you inquire for him A This morning
Q. Did she tell you when he went A. No.
Mr. Sherman couns,l for the plaintiff proposed to read
the deposition Of Mr. Maurice Strskosch
NJ Brady objected, the ground that his absence
not proved.
The Court however ruled that it should be read and
took the sxcey ton of Mr. Brady.
In reply question from Mr.. Brady as to his object
in reading the deposition Mr. Jordan replied that it
to show malicious olive on the part OF the defendant
Mr. Brady-rhen object for such evidence is utterly
Incompetent 10 seton of libel SANDER refer the
Court to the case of Howard vs. Sexton, Ok rstock,
p l57
Judge Oakley What do you intend to prove by that
Mr. Jordan replied that they ntsnded prove that at
the time of the publication of The twelve bels the de
PENDANT had job printing office and that the witness
told Mr. rett hs thought dr. Fry would have no OBJ
lection to have his lis printed at his Office He proposed
that there should be conference between Mr. Bennett
and Fry upon the subject This converse ton was With
out the knowledge authority of Ar Fry and sim
ply an act Of friendship on the part OF the witness Mr.
Strakosch Upon consultation afterwards with Mr.. Fry
Mr. f. told him he did not desire to have any unca
ton Whatever with him the subject Strakosch after
DIS informed Mr. Bennett that he had not any authority
from Mr.. Fry for the proposition be had made to him;
that he had refused to have anything to do with Mr. B.
NJ Fry 'A '' ''n''' ''A'1 - ''Aia ''' '''' -''n
Mr. brady said that case was without precedent ia
any of its features That twelve 5els grouped to-
geher, involving the general charges Judge Daer,
In the 5th Of SANFORD s4 ays it down rule that
1t no. necessary for he plaintiff to prove pAi tcuar
intent express MALICE and in the of Matthews and
Beach, it agreed that IL was Of consequence if
the defendant heard of the plaintiff 10 the world
The Judge said the question was whether il
pstsnt to prove that these bels published b, the
injury he considered it competent to prove that the
words published were done as 10 DO malicious injury 10
the plaintiff.
MI Brady excep' ed 10 the ru irg of the Court.
The deposition Of Maurice Stakosch then read by
Mr. Sherman. Mr.. Sanford reading the mnaton
During the reading of this deposition large portion of
it objected to BY the defendants counsel nsim
sbe and it possible to decide what part should
be admitted the Judge took the papers, and said he
should take the earliest opportunt OF determining what
portion was, and VIZ at rot, admissible As
1t is reviewed by the Judge We shall present it to
readers
for the present. sseryDg the right however prsssn.
a1y further evidence which they might have to offer
brief argument arose upon he question Of the right
ofthe plaintiff to II axe shy reservation which ter
minated BY the Juogs stairg that he should admit any
that might be rel want.
ford, who owe the complaint be dismissed the
ground 1t evidence of libel had been offered, and
that the compliant dsd not state facts sufficient to cons
tute Ct action, The which you to try,
continued Mr. ford addressing The jury is techs
csy termed action Of libel IL brorg h for the pub
lieafion Of written defamati = OF character and yet
you have heard nothing 10 the paragraphs which have
character OF
plaintiff or inficfirg Personti rsproach uon him
less 1t be in the failure Of the particular business in
which he was sHgase5 Tie Islander, fthers be any is
directed entirely towards his acts and op.rations-hs
coIduc. n his oicia capacity, manager OF public
opera house The defendant stands in position which
entities him to consideration st Your hands BE
the conductor Of public Journal having 1t that time
extensive circn alton, and wkich has, BY the de
voticn to it Of amount of enterprise persever-
and talent that have rarely, if ever, been
equaled in the history OF newspaper journalism OF
this country, attained the most extensive circulate m
q
was bis duty to in orm his readers of what trans
P was engaged in bringing oeore the p Uuse Inc
engaging in this business, the plaintiff invited criticism
upon bis ability to conduct t-prvate and public OPT
MON, and tore especially he invited criticism from
the public press both npn his capacity and conduct
II was, therefore, position which criticism in
formed upon his ndnc without any infring Of
decor UNI and good breeding u accordingly the right
OF the defendant CITIZEN indie ldent of his pacity
public journalist TO form bis opinion OF the charac
ter Of the PLAN ID far the performance of the part he
nso seeeleo ioo recoect tnat Toe piantn stated In
his opening that It was business to which ne
not used it did not constitute that for which
he had been educated in life, and many might
think that he did not possess the requ isite en-
tepriss and sill successfully to prosecute it, From
this is apparent tAa it woud be necessary speak Of
the position capacity and experience of others and
tIast the relative skill and ability they brought the
enterprise and compare them With those of the plaintiff
Ll was clearly the right OF every either and man,
Tor expre sing opinion with regard to his
could be held smensble De cenaured by any court
before the bar Of public opinion the of
public journal il was not on his privilege but it was
his public duty to give information upon the subject of
the character and management OF that opera did
upon all other subjects Of general public coacern and
when the public read containing his views pom
IT, it did not follow that they would adopt his opnious
for it the boast Of country that with the
Of the press be safely tolerated while
is left free to combat it, does follow the opin
ions must necessarily be correct in order to warrant
In expressing his vie wsit is enough that they
honety ene ailed The theory Of our government and
people that il here be ia them 1t Ei be
ed by public opinion. II all to be restricted in
the expression Of their opinions errors must go ancor-
-ected. Tbs defendant, Therefore, had two privileges
which Of vii u nipor to himthe right Of his
privse iufgment and that given him by his position
publ, journalist to inform the people about this place
OF public represen ton and 10 give his Wis rs with the
iacts for their liberation and to enable
then 60 Judge whether this series OF representa-
tons that would would 1T interest them AMI tbis Is
AL he has done, will show. Now, the defendant
himself has mahRoed Mr. Fry in regard to his