New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-06-01

knocked down and maitreated in Broadway, By
Messrs. NJ. and A., migrant runners merely becanso
he asked them to refund tho money for worthless pss-
seuger tickets sold to friend Of his The case we
tried time ago, but the testimony for defenss.
from the of the Elesdngs on that trial exclud
Ell, and verdict for plaintiff rendered sor $500 but
the matter carried by defense to the Coart Of Appeas
which granted the present new trial. The defsass
was that the article was substantially true.
After the summing up, Judge BoswOrth delivered
The following
cHkR0E.
GEsr1rxKs: This action Is brought, as you have
already been appized for publishing article IN Tss
Nor York SAN, and the defendants. SGT up adsfsnss
that il true.
Tleiule is that PARTY who justfes the publishing
Of itcl by attempting to prove mat Whist was pub,
meaning tie facts the article states, and al
though every part of article claimed to be hoeloos
whole is not proved TO be true by the deenss yea
if what is lett is not Of itself hoelous the deonss q
made ont.
A ibelous publication is one the statements OF which
are calculated to expose 3 man TO public niicuiet
hatred, contempt ], not necessary, in order that
article which is printed or written or published DO
libeous, that il should imply an offense.
And in this connection may well remark that
the defendants have proved that the article Is true hoy
are entitled your verdict. The law allows 70
publish any thing of another, provided 1t true; and
IL is complete defense that the article Is true.
TIE part OF the article states that respectable
man was cssaed in Broadway by Messrs. Matthews
and Adams, two opigrant runners, who KIN )ckod him
down ard grossly maltrested Linz This statement 70
one which is hbeous on its face, and in reference to
this Iait s for YOU 10 say II has been proved sub
stonrOlly true. That the party was assaulted that
evening believe there Is controversy. In refer
eucc TO tie allegation that they emigrant
nols, DO not think that was material. Calling man
M tmicrant runner is not in itself hbelous. IL is
business licensed by law and II man conducts him
ID horn. ha Al him
of TIE law in regard to that make tho remark 70
show that does not become the turning point whether
YOU should believe strictly that plaintiff is what
called an emigrant runner or no..
n rospoctable man named. That assault was COM
mittcd on him is denied. Tho name of the party
is stated right and | believe he is Of rcspectablity
and in that branch the article IL true.
Tie material point, 30 far as the plaintin IS con-
cernod is whether he participated in the assault 80
that be said that the assault and maltreatment ot
the rarity was made by Matthews US well as Adams.
The rule of the law undoubtedly Is whore an assaun
is committed BY person, that although tho blows
may be struck by person only Others are pres
ent, aud urging the matter on, and participating
among themselves in it, although the others may NOS
have struck blow they can all be sued as JOINT tres
passers There is proof that MIR. Adams made an a.
sault-tbe only question is If Mr. Matthews also made
an alt on the party, or participated IN thot o.
Adamsl If YOU believe the testimony OF the party
assaulted which has been before you, Matthews also
assaulted him and gave him push OF some con
siderable violence; and which would have thrown
him down had he not taken hold of railing. Some
witnesses say they saw assault made by the plain
tiff on The party. II is rule it is properfor the Court
10 say TO YOU that il Is the duty of Jury to reconcile
the statements of Witnesses where they can do So where
they consider those witnesses to be fair and intend TO
81 eak the truth 1t may very well be that persons
situaied like Mr.. Arnold and some otherss might
have had their attention directed 10 some other point
and the Glowing and shove might have been made
and escaued their attention. II would seem impossible
10 IN have lqpn miatakeu the
man wlo did IT, aud it hardly be supposed he wa
mistaken to the fact. If he says he was 80 pushed
and he was not it would Of course DO deliberate
fnliehood. IL YOU believe Matthews did make an as
sault on him. and il it OF tho character stated
| the party, YOU will have difficulty In finding that
| Matthews maltreated him. if you do not believe tho
party and that lis statement il untrue, he mis-
| taken and that Matthews thero merely a. casual
slectntor then this part of the defense is not made
out; Int on the other hand ii you believe that Mat
thews was crowding round and participating with Adj
ans, the judgment OF law Id that they equally oom-
| mited tie ofense.
Then The only oiLer point is that they knocked him
down. There is no controversy believe as to his
| not having been knocked down. He kept his feet,
ard in that form the article is not true; but the de-
fensc is substantially made out in judgment Of Law If
be WIS assaulted with such violence, either by push
ing or Otherwise, that he would have been thrown
down If he had not taken hold of the railing the only
why The result did not follow being that he 20
supported himself End prevented it,
But where the article says the party was assaulted
and proceeds TO sato the circumstances OF the assault
beng OF awaited character, and the evidences
should discover that there was simply an assault with
10 circumstances Of such characters and If the facts
stated were wholly untrue, that article alleging
those facts alone would be libelous then tho state
ment would not be wholly justified by the proof But
if as TO the difference between the aggravated crcun-
stances attending the assault IL hos been proved that
they should not have followed, then the statement
would have been substantially made out, and the do
| fendant would be entitled TO your verdict.
| TIa ot.lv undprrfaDd 10 which much import
is attached is that the quarrel is represented -
originating in the party asking the fellows to refund
money paid TO them by Of his friends for worth
less tickets bought Of them. You will observe in
reference TO the form in which it put, by repre-
seDng that il was The of the quarrel. SO FAR AZ
to Whether it was represented, You have tho es-
mony Of the party NJ to whatbe told the reporter and
| also 10 what the reporter stated ct the Office.
| But npurehend tie publication Of article in q
paper which by the terms of the article, says it
stated 10 the editor by person that such and such
fncs occurred and which if not true would be libel
QUE would not be justified by showing that such per-
| son made such representations. The jury, however,
would look or case very different where 1t was said
tie REPRESENTATION was made and 1t was proved 10
| have been made by person OF credloDty, ana one
| where it was stated unqualifedy and ~ wbin hs
| own knowledge. With reference to the Parsiouihr
phrase have read to you says that hey soid wonn
recey, price for them but 1t does not aver IN ex-
rress ms that they knew them 10 be worthless or
would not be accepted by captain 10 80 througn
with. T1eTe no allegation that notice that they
,,erc not received mad been brought hOr TO other Of
e lefore the sacnnd therefore TO make it Iibelous
II mus be shown that the facts proved show that it
would be an OienGe o. law TO cell such tickets, or
that it would be breach Of fair dealing. There
il no controversy believe, between the council
that Il eso two tickets were sold to some one ana that
the money, g. wos received for them-and perhaps
Vou will lave no difficulty In finding that the imme-