New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-06-20
LIREI. LAWS.

LIBEL LAWS.
The unfortunate individual who has figured as de-
PENDANT in suit for libel viii agree with u that the
most agrant outre yes perpetrated upon common JUS
tice end common sense in the name Of law, are en-
acted in .ocaled trials Tor that Ohrnse and invariably
bear with crushing force upon the defendant. The
icpal axiom The greater the truth the greater the
.bel is Of itself an outrage subversiye OF the first
principles of truth. The ruling-worthy OF Jeiries
himself-that the defendant must prove the truth of
every rumor to which be may give currency is dis
grace 10 respectable jurisprudence while the extern
sion of that ruling far TO say that If the defend
ant fully proves uinetynin items in hundred but
fails 10 prove the hundredth he fails utterly, and must
be punished as though be hal proved nothing
Is simply atrocious 1t woad seem that
nothing IN tie form of outrage the de-
fendant could 90 further than th,s; yet the
ingenuity of judges who hate the press who desire
to work in the dark and keep their dongs secret has
gone even beyond this scandaiogs rule. 1t has long
been recognized as law that i the defendant fails TO
make out every point ofhis though ne shows new
er so much reason for believing statement at the time
to be true aud shows that it the current topic Of
the day spoken of freely By all men, that it was an
ordinary matter of news. recorded without a shadow
OF malice yet. having failed 70 prove the truth OF one
unessentia point the verdict is against him. and not
one o. The qcts he has yrored be offered in mtiga-
ton of damaess Thus to escape costs and in some
measure to rely upon the common sense of Juries
rather than such rulings Of Judges publishers often
confess Judgment or admit their publication to be false
rather than attempt defense which must De either
perfection itself or worse than none at all. Having
admitted that their publication libel they are
then eraciousiy permitted to offer circumstances in
mitigation Of damages providing such testimony does
not tend 10 prove the truth OF that which they
have technically said was untrue. and said it sole
" in order 10 get IN this mitigating evidence.
Take on instance: John was arrested for
assault ANA battery on Peter, was taken before JUS
tee and held 10 bail 10 keep the peace. The reporter
misunderstanding the AFFAIR says " held to bail to
answer" Down comes Johns lawyer-wlth a
keen scent for cOstsand the publisher for libel
The defendant proves all except the error in stating
the condition OF the bond; whereupOn the Judge
cravely tells him that he has proved nothing-that he
has tod lie throughout. and the Jury must bring
him in guilty Again A merchant in Boston gets
letter from London stating that il is believed there
that SHOCKS Captain OF the bark Quiz, has gone 10
is current in Boston as matter OF news of interest
TO the mercantile community; and there is so much
ground for i that British Admiral has actually sent
frgae TO overhaul this bark if she can be found AMI
bring her 70 account The printer OF newspaper who
knows nothing o. the matter and never heard of the
parties finds the story telegraphed with other
from Boston and prints il. Two years aterwari
Capt. Shocks comes home and sues the New-York
printer Tor false and malicious libel II turns out
on examination that though SHOCKS did many remark.
able and suspicious things he went after load
OF negroes. ThereupOn a sapent Jury bring in 4
diet OF exemplary damages, making the unfortunate
printer bleed for the benefit Of whom he never
heard OF, ami who, if not guilty Of the oaen,e i'm.
pued IN such circumstance as TO be looked upon
suspiciousy By merchants, aud KEEP. under official
Surveillance By tle Admiral of heet. II il proved
that the plaintiffs movements were strange that it
was the common report in London that he was going
TO run slaves; that the British commander, after
conference with the French admiral, sent a
ship-ofwar after him; yet all this weighs
nothing and the Judge tells the Jury that they must
consider the defendant as offending without shadow
of excuse. wifuly and maliciously, and lay on the
damages accordingly. Or the publisher thinking he
cannot prove enough for perfect defense cOnfesses
judgment and goes before Jury 10 show how he
came TO make the publication; with view to re-
ductiOp of damages II il should chance that he gets
hold Of the very who started the story, and that
man swears that Snooks told him that he was going
after negroes and the witness saw his preparations
and believes ne lid go all this is ruled out because
tends to prove the truth Of the charge and because
Prores the printer innocent it is is not to be taken in
mitigation Of damages. True, there sre few Jures
who not Influenced favorsbly toward the defend.
ant by this rueiou proof and il is on the sense Of
common justice n the Jury, and not on the law that
the publisher rests his case
We bave made tbs brief AMI we hope plain state
u nt o.. IT, position o.. sr.ors n cs,s o. ube, Tor