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

the purpose of calling attention to two steps recently
taken in the direction Of justice. Oae wss tho pas.
ss.e Of o law by the last Legislature saying that
ai and impartial statement Of any transaction before
regula- court or juiicis. officer, tho same being
without note or d,rogatory) comment. should be a
privileged pub ica;.Oa, and justfsble whether true
or net Ths is vel. and protects newspapers from
tie most ve1atious class Of suits-thoss which tbs
plaintiff really cares nothing about. ba, IS induced 10
institute b. some sneaSing pet.ioeger or TomoS
shark who. heretofore, was sure to get few hun
drel. not or Of his client bu: from the publisher
either 81 costs or by way Of compromise. TIE other
step we lind in an opinion OF Judge Hoffman IN SUIT
now before him. Though upon side issue and not
upon the main question his language is saeh as 10
give strong hope Of the overthrow n the airocous
doctrine dat b. vho fails prove all proves nothing
snd that in order 10 plead for mitigation OF damages
yea must mus, fr.t admit your publication to be false
IN toto. AID otcr nothing which tends 70 contradict
that admission Judge Hoffman says
80 arurel,nd dst the Code ,sec los has broken IA
., - milo stated In Cooper ~. Barber - " NELL.
III and oLe- cases that evidence going only to damages
,, bo such "a adults the charge % be ttSe that It
mi - make out Justification ana fall shor ~ The marx.
admissible rs Il damages o.S aus uo's h9' sil
the asitv And appears to me that he rule ~ declared
In Clanrs ". Shacke 6 Car. and Payne 80 now pre-
walls VIZ. that i Justification IS pleaded bug the ev.
iaf
Ms committed bv the plaintiff vet they may take the acts
into oon,i ration estimating the damages Nor del SEQ
.ha, there exist, sound distinction between lgsu,'
of the pah cation resting upon s being privileged anu
one resting upon the charges being true cannot se the
good sense or sound logic - rule which nrpois de
tendan from urging thar. although the evidence he mas
aiduced cannot legally warrant substantial l'e.on
for the crime charged yet 50 closely appfoaehes 70 ~ ~
=, s-re the publication from that impuiaton % Wa"e
VIII without such evidence would attach TO H. AZ any
rate rnl otherwise instructed. consider the 'ode A
permitting the OF the testimony Tor su'n
These two steps in liberal direction induce mo
beef that the time is not far distant when the publl-
c,ton Of HE ordinary news OF the day Will not put
the proprietor of newspaper in perpetual Jeopardy.
As matters have been, the statement that A. and
B. had an alteration aud A. knocked Is. down was
underline law gross ana malicious libel lntentedtp
i,iur he A. and ii he chose to bring SUIT
the sher was inevitably cast for heavy bill OF costs
and something by way OF damages, although every
,yor that he had said was literally true Now though
such transaction is not before court we presume
Il would be considered privileged publication es-
reci,Il, if the act were done in public place And
with reference to Judge Hoiman's opinion 1t wlhbe
Of benefit not only tc publishers but to all par
ties If il shall succeed in opening the door to the adj
mission of the truth bringing al the facts to bear upon
the case-as in any other trial for criminal ohensc-
instead of forcing defendant to admit iasehood Is
the ONLY means OF getting anything like justice
In common With al publishers, We have an interest
in these matters but setting aside all private consia
era,ons hope for the honor oursprudence and the
credit of common sense that the reform Will go on
until the law of libel shall in some degree aSslmiate
with ordinary Justice with which it has until very
recently been Ia direct antagonsm