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

A., araeter--but the jury must
~ A. lie Kbel0us article ana "e rhsx must ,~s
-~sr;rc in which 1t was puoilsnea. LII e. ~ok
a as sensible men, ana M, s"y party for the
and tus' cot ere vas no point made nere that there
oeL..e tnsI malice or that there wss any intention
- niure But it has been gSs;ed TO you by coun-
~, X A. n was entitled 10 SINE consideration that do
fsnSsnts would not ret. act this article when waited
ION by Mr.. Matthey,s and requested to do. In
difference to that think it is proper view TO conslder
What effect 1t nould have in the estimation OF the jury
q TO the Character Of the article, whether 1t was pup
kled h. GOOD faith and believed 10 be true, and from
Nat the publishers declined TO make the reuacuon or
II Won suppose, on the other hand, they puonsheu ~
without supposing it TO be uue or having, aierweiu
Information which showed it to be entirely untrue ana
Eev refused I'm take any notice of K IL is proser 10
render suitable consideration IN damages: put II yea
slonld be satisfied that the facts WITHIN me know'e1g
Of the perties asked 10 make the reracuon wec so.
That tbev Ind reason 10 believe the article 10 De u
fAen although It might turn out to be untrue II wonu
no, no a case for aggravated damages, OF ent'he
party 10 a verdict beyond actual damages. ,s.. 10
Az to the rule of damages l nndeIs.ana .n ~
HAT person who has been injured Is away
- t,i setvai renaration and where ii should appear
Snt where there is actual ilwill maj Jury - nor
restrained TO what they believe 70 oc Tue oi
- ,h.t nnder such circumstances, where the case
III CO. - tbev arc to 20 somewhat beyond that and
i've what II cafJcd exemplary damages
Tbon ma TO what is called mitigating damages, do
NOT understand that ss meaning tnat the party In any
i
sbc defendants are entitled TO liberal application az
70 the rule of damages where it is shown they acted
Ia good faith without actual malice and that they
thought it was true although it might turn out to be
otherwise. -,
So apprehend The only point in this case would De,
YOU find for the plaintiff, what would be under inc
Yuie the actual damage sustainedand that you would
not have TO investigate that unless you have deter
mined that the defendants have failed to prove that
de article is true IN its substance end meaning-and
fhey have proved that the defendants are entitled tc
your verdict.
When you have agreed upon ycur verdict Gentle
men. YOU will sign it and seal it and bring 1t IN to-
morrow at 10 o'clock. .
On Thursday morning the Jurys sealed verdic
was opened and was found to be for the defendants
Upon poll eleven of the Jurors declared such to b
their decision
Mr.. Moses S. Beach, one of the defendants, then
rose and said
"GEsTLEMEs: cannot but thank you from my
heart for the verdict you have just rendered. Mine
Ii but tbankless business at the best but have al
WAYS tried to do my duty in it. Your verdict encour
ages me to I" keep trying" have spent full 80 oot
IN the costs and expenses of defending the suits which
have grown out OF that publication, and all because
would not pay pary $40 to settle it In the first IN
stance. And now, gentlemen, to show You that YOU
verdict has been Just one, let me exhibit to you
some documents which as Jurynen you could not be
allowed to see."