The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-06-02


violence, and which would have thrswa hiu dom hal
be not taken hold u rsisg some witnesses say they
saw 20 assaus mase by ths pltntiu on the party II Is
rule IL 10 proper for me court to say to you that IL
10 the duty Of jury to reconcile the ststemsats Of wit
sesses where they do where they consider those
Witnesses to bs isr and ntead to spsak the truth. 1t
may very well be persons situated like Mr. Arnold
and some Others, might have had their stten
s sos eirs, a !" some other point and the 81
escaped their attention II wsu'd Teen impos
dbls for the party himself to have beea mis-
taken az to the man ~ho did IL, and 1t hardly be
supposed he was mistaken 70 the TACT IL he says no
was 80 pushed, and he was no 1t would Of course, be
make assault On him. and IL il was Of the character
stated by the party, wiz have difficulty in fading
that Matthews him. IL you do not believe tho
party and that his statement 10 untrue. hs mis-
taken, and that Matthew there merely casual
spectator thes :hs part OF the deencs net made cut
but ON the other hand, you believe that Matthews
was erowdiDg round and participating with Aams, thu
judgment Of law is, that taey equally committed the
him dswn There Is DO controversy. believe as TO his
not having been knocked down He kept his feet and
In that form the article not true but the dsnss il
assaulted with such violence, either by pushing or
otherwise, that he would have been thrown down
only rtaso. why the result did net follow s"s
being that ne 20 supported Dimssf and prevented
II. But wh,rs the a.,ies says the party vas
the assault as besg Of character aad the
evidence should discover that there Hmply an as
saut with no circumstances OF such ccaracter and IL
the facts stated wholly untrue that article
alleging those facts alone Vsuld be hbehsus, thea tho
statement would not be wholly justified by the proof
But to the difference bet xeea the aggravated cir
cumstances attending the assault il has been proved
that they should not have fcowed then tAs statemeas
PENDANT would be emitted to your verdict The emily
enc to which much Importance attached
Is that the quarrel Ia represented the
party askDg the fellows to refund money paid TO them
BY some OF his friends for worthless tickets bought OF
them You viii observe, In reference to the form in
which it put by representing was the ca use
Of the quarrel So far 70 whether it repre-.
told the reporter also 70 What the rsport.r stated
at the Office But lspprebeud the o,ic4ton Of ard
Gle in paper which, BY the terms of tho aroe says
such facts occurred and which, Il not true, would be
hbeous, would not be justified BY sho wing that such
would look case very disret where it was said the
representation made, and ir was proved to have
been made BY person Of crsdoilty ana where is
was stated uEquafeoly, and ~ within his owa know-
ledge With reference 70 the particular phrase have
read to YOU It Gays that they sold worthless sesmboat
for them but DOES express terms they
hnew them to be worthless, would not be &C ,epted
ton that notice that they net received had
brought home to either Of them before the sale-and
therefore, to mako it hbeous 1t must bs that
the facts proved chow that 1t would offence at Law
TO sell such tickets, that would be breach Of fair
dealing There is no controversy believe, between the
counsel that thsse two tickets sold sons one
and that the money, 50, was received for them; and
perhaps you will have difficulty in finding that
the immediate cause or origin Of the matter was
that one Of the parties at NIL events called up
ON to refund the money-as the testimony sho that
the party made request to have them refund the
money Whether Matthews was at all concerned with
Adams in the sale Of those tickets, partcp ated in
any way in said SALE matter must leave you to
determine on the evidence which has been given That
evcence OF course relates to what TOOK place taer
presence and to the fact Of tickets Of this character
being cold in the Office where be VAS and other actions
of those parties together detailed by the witnesses
you should not be satisfied from the evidence that Mr.
Matthews participated il the sale of these tickets and
that he had connection with the sale a. ALL and ne
interest in the tickets then the staten ia the paper
Is inaccurate SO far as relates to Mr. Matthew'S With
reference to the statement that complaint had bean
made before Mr. Lathrop you have heard the evidence
OF the party that he went there aad that
refused him. and then that he to the Mayor and the
Mayor called on Mr. Lathrop and the latter queny
issued the warrant Now, il you should find in case
that this article has BEEN proved its scope and
meaning, on the rule have stated to DO trus your
Their labors would be at an end and you would givss
vercict for deeudants but you ind that it has not
been and portions OF il beous then the gu sston
left, and the only question: would be that OF damages
In all actions OF libel or SANDER where Of action
is nnde out, party is entitled to recover actual da
msge; and where damage is proved it is a matter
resting on the sound discretion o; jury-aud what ia
by that 10 that there is familiar rule by which
you be guided the to property ia estima.
the becus article, and the character aud in
which it was published They must look at ssnsi
be men and say What would be pro aud Just COM
rans"ton to the party for thu hol believe there
to injure. But it has been suggested to you
BY counsel that it was entitled to some considers
when waited upon by Mr.. Matthews, and requested
SO to do. In refereoce to that think it is proper
view 10 consider what effect it should have In the
estimation Of the jury, the character of the arti
cle whether it published in good faith and believed
to be true and from that the publishers declined to
make the Ietraction or IL you suppose the other
hand, they published without supposing to be true
having, after wards which showed to
be entirely untrue, ard they refused TO take note
Of it. it Is proper to suitable consideration in
dsDages But you should be satisfied that the facts
within the knowledge OF the parties asked to make the
nat Al reaa To
the article to be true then although IL might turn out
to be untrue T. would not be case for aggravated da
IMAGES entitle party 70 verdict beyond actual
damages. As to the rule OF damages, understand it
to be that person who has been Injured is ways
pear that where there is actual Ill will that Jury IL
not restrained to what they believe to be the loss
-and that under such circumstances where the case
calls for it, they to what beyond that and
give what il called exemplary damages Then what is
called mitigating damages, do not understand that
his sctusl damages But the dsfs ndsnts entitled
liberal applca ion the ruls OF damages where is
shown they acted in good faith, without actual malice
and that they thought it true although It might
turn out TO be otherwise SO apprehend the only point
in this would be- If you end for plaintiff what would
be- under the rule, the actual damage sustained; and
that you would not have to investigate that unless you
have determined that the deien iants have failed to
ing and they have proved that, the defendants are
entitled 10 your verdict When you have agreed upon
your verdict gentlemen, you will sign it and zeal and
bring II in to-m morrow at ten o'clock.
THIRD DAYS PROCEEDINGS.
Some Of the jurors little behind time In present.
ing themselves this morning.; and the attorney for
plaintiff refused to allow the verdict to be taken until
they came in, the court kept waiting nearly half an
hour The attorney, however, expressed himself salts
fed when certain OF the absentees On whom his
mind seemed re appeared and the verdict was then
tai from eleven OF the jurors without waiting for the
twelfth.
The sealed verdict handed by the foreman to the
Judge, who opened 1t The clerk then read from it..
"WB FIND FOR THE DEFENDANTS"
or words to that effect underneath which signed
the names OF the jurors
The attorney for plaintiff then demanded that the u
rors be poled. Each called of, and each OF
the eleven Jurors promptly declared that such his
verdict.
fiNANC AND CONNER CiAI.
NJ N " ~ a n xx o. N