The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-18

CounoilDen on the Subject of the Memorial and Pc
thons of the Unemployed" The document is well
drawn up, and gives some hard knocks to the real
estate capitalists, with reply 20 the cry Of the
labor market being overstockee by foreign emf
grants. We publish the Review to-day.
The Fry Verdict Quashed-The Press Free
After All.
AT length we are permitted to congratulate
the public on the reversal of the scandalous
verdict rendered few months ago in the case
of Fry VS.. Bennett Yesterday morning, the
proceedings of the court below were fully re-
viewed by rhe six Judges, who unanimously de-
cided on the very first point raised by the
defendant, that the verdict of the jury was bad,
and that a new trial must be granted. Very
few people, we imagine, will be taken by sur
prise by this intelligence. In spite of the silly
attempts of our rivals to justify q decision
which was in reality as injurious to themselves
as to us, the public at large have all along been
fully persuaded that the verdict was an un-
righteous one, and that it was as wrong in prin-
ciple as it was impolitic in practice to endeavor
to stife by heavy fines the voice of just criti-
cism 1t is not necessary at this time to refer
either to the improper agencies or to the obtuse
intellects to which we were originally indebted
for our sentence; they are of record, and will
remain striking proof of the injury which
the jury system may be made to work
For our part, we can afford to treat them with
contempt The thinking portion of the CON-
munity long since reversed their folly the six
Judges, with unanimity very seldom wit
messed, have now reduced it to nullity, and we
shall probably hear no more of the matter.
The plaintiff is at liberty of course to tempt
fortune still further by pouring his sorrows
into the bosom Of another jury, in the hopes
that some private enemy of ours may be seated
in the box and may take that opportunity of
gratifying his spite against u.s. He may once
more hire licensed slanderer to insult Us by
the hour, and earn a few dollars by raSing the
cutters for filthy epithets, or lying charges to
hurl against the HERALD. He may find wit
nesses to swear to order; we have en- emies far
more than enough for such purpose. But
with all these, with spiteful jury men, unscru-
pulous counsel, improper witnesses, and any
other allies he may choose, he will never get
another verdict against the HERALD.
For since the Fry verdict, as it has been
called, was rendered, striking developement
in pubic sentiment has taken place. The pub
lie have been educated on one most important
point, the necessity Of upholding the liberty of
the press Until the jury in that case awarded
ten thousand dollars damages against us for cri-
ticising an opera, no one had any idea fthe dan.
ger to which newspapers were exposed in faldll-
ing their duty as chronicles Of passing events.
Men had a general idea that the law of libel was
awholesome institution, retained in order to pre-
vent Journals from destroying mans charac-
ter through malice; aud rather liked it than 9th
erwise. But when it appeared that this same
law Of libel could be made to work in such {.
way as to involve newspaper in the necessity
of indemnifying an opera manager for losses
sustained through his own incompetency, SIM
ply because the editor had noticed the eviden-
ces of that incompetency as they appeared,
vast change came over the public mind.
The question at issue then took this shape:
Shall the newspapers cease to report and criti-
else theatrical performances, or shall fair re-
ports and criticisms be held to constitute no
the affirmative to the former proposition with
out stultifying themselves. People must aud
will read accounts of what is passing at theatres
as well as elsewhere; and therefore newspapers
must furnish them, and be protected in doing
so. These ideas have been fermenting in the
mind Of every citizen who is liable to serve on
jures ever since the Fry verdict; and long be-
tore the judges quashed it unanimously, we had
reason to feel certain, if the case went second
time before jury that the verdict would be
conformable to justice and right.
The chances are that we shall not have an
opp ortunity Of verifying our conviction.
Whether we have or no, the case of Fry vs.
history of the press in America. We are vio-
lating no rule when we say that it was noto-
rious that the plaintiff in that case was sustain
ed by large clique Of wealthy men, compris-
ing what are vulgarly known as the Goldfish
aristocracy,n who layished influence, money
and intrigue in order to crush journal which
had ever been hostile TO them as class, and
unfriendly to their schemes. Backed by
them, Mr.. Fry entered the lists against
the HERALD under peculiarly auspcious
circumstances. Accident favored HIM in
the choice and deposition Of witnesses;
he had as many as he wanted, and they swore
the things he wanted The Judge was--we mean
no repro,ch-very favorable to the abduction
Of evidence. When the case came on. an out
side pressure from our rivals began to be exer-
cised on the jury. Finally there were among
them men directly concerned with the plain
tif7s hackers, with whom the rendition Of YER
dict against the HERALD was a sworn point.
Surely, SO singular combination of happy