The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-22
rne Great Mercantile Islander Suit
sUPnIOR OOURr-YIRST PART,
Bafore Hon. Judge Woodruff.

0UPKBlOR COURT-FIhST fAhT,
Before Hon. Judge Woodruff
DuuD nAy.
NAY u.-RseAsrs O. FSse's q. H~>y sess<-xr.
O,Couor was proceeding 70 road he answer Of Hsnry
novep 10 The nrst complaint q hse p,ainain whea
Mr. Cutting objected 10 IL being given In evidence
No sus Mr. Bowen not signed by him, but emily
BY bis sssospsy, Barnard Parsous.
ne Ccurs inuna.ed thas could be read bss NOT q
evidence Of the facts.
Mr. OOonsr said that under that aspect he would
ooer H. but proposed 70 read 70 the Jury tho amended
answer cf the defendant
Mr. Outing again obieoted.
Mr. Oyper did offer the sixth section q the answer
an viacpce Of facts because he believed u be wholly
false the cbarao or Of Mr. 70 ~ies but he offered
10 show the Jury what Mr. Bowen 70 in his third
answer the and what he hal placed on record
his solemn declaration.
MI OConor then read the answer in which Mr.. Bowen
says thai The plaintiff in the employ Of Bowen Nc
Nam, in ls49, and that while 10 such employ he became
such notorious liar that they could not place any CONT
Rchard j. scrivener deposed that Nicholas Carter,
witness this case Ut present in Engant; that he
Ief in October, 1854 and been absent since.
Mr. OConor hen proposed 70 read the deposition Of NJ
Carter.
the former TRIAL and he suggested hat that examination
should be read instead of the deposition.
Mr. OOonor would consent to read the whole testimony
Of all the Witnesses tho printed book and rest his
omit
Objection overruled.
Mr. OCouor then read the examination of Nicholas Car
ter partner Of A. s. Henry, Of England, taken ID Of
March, ls63The Of the business Of that house
would be betwes and three millions sterling year.
Mr. Carter became acquainted wito Fowes in lSt7 by
letter of introduction from M Murphy OF Cork, Ireland
with whom Fswles had been brought up deponent in
roduced him the house of A. T. Stewart and subse-
quebuy called Bowen McNamee ind asked them the
character Of Mr. Fowles and whether he would be usuned
in introducing him TO some friencs in Cincinnati Bowen
Il McNamee deponent would be perfectly Justified
in RI uoing Fowles his conduct had been per-
fectly satisfactory 70 them while he was In their employ
David ~ Nsss deposed tua. he believed Mr.. Stone
a partner in the house Of Bowen McNamee, and had
been far back Is 1851 he did not know his handwriting
now proposed TO read those portions Of the de-
positions Of Mr.. Sol ana Mr. Cole which previously
rejected. was with view TO prove that when Fowles
left Bowen McNamee he went 10 the house Of George
H. Wood OF Cincinnati; that one OF Mr. Woods drm came
the NORTH and instead Of buying his gloves a Bowen
he went 10 In New York and made his pur
chases. They had already proved that Fowes was
viousy tn the house Of Bowen McNamee for aboat two
years. and that he left them In the possession Of their
confidence and being trustworthy, yet Mr. Bow
the end Of several months and says To
this man, lie, You nnrtnrng viper in your BOSOM
you have young man in your employ who was such ;
notorious liar when with us, that We coGlt have no
confidence IN him. this is no, In conformity win
of sanctty morality which too frequently used for
worldly purposes Yet be gave this man let or OF recon-
mendatop all the world, and theu he goes TO the frat
man employs him and says. Oh, sir, beware Of that
for he sc0undrel, Notwithstanding the letter that
gave him." lie therefore contended that be had right
10 read tho positions prove concusivey those
facts which would furnh motives the part OF Bo Een
Mr.. Cutting said thai he hoped the jury could the
object Of the Of the counsel in making such
an niampstory speech a; this stage Of the He mr.
Cutting) would ask TO up the cause at present
He objected to the reading OF those portions indicated as
improper evidence.
Direction sustained.
The plaintiff here rested his case.
Mr. EvRrts then moved 10 ssiss the complaint tho
ground all ords careessy spoken considered
aconabe unless they mpute punishable crime or unless
the words sanderously spoken inlare the party
in his business profession. Words spoken of
q mans aptitude for business can only be con-
sdered ac,ionabe far a. they actually inter-
ferc with his business professional profits. The
imputaons cast upon the planus by the defendant are
actonabie In themsevc cgards the character OF
u man. If every time a calls another liar
presses suspicion OF his honesty Islander suit should be
ipruted should be running into greater degree Of
evil than by permitting the evil o the SANDER he re-
first of Sndfords Superior Court Reports In
which aferton that q keeper Of public house was
dangerous and desperate man. and that defendant
had said ali aid there alone, held not 70
be sconabl In the LIST DEMO, $50, the same pint rs
taken. The complaint charged that Squire Van Tas.ell
in combination 10 chca strangers, and Was Id
backlog Now that MOI very goo1 character for
Justice Of Peace, but Judge Bronson delivered the
opinion Of the Court THAI these words not artooaoIe
they affected the plaintiff IN his official capacity
hs pro sion Counsel ded that action he
in this unless malice " proved, and that special da
mage had been sustained the burhen that proof
was ON the plaintiff. lie also submitted that the
words spoken were privileged communication
from q previous employer to subsequent EN-
The Court without wishing 10 interfere with Mr.. OConor
ia his reply nmatsd that be might oouane himself 70 he
Mr. OiCopor AFTER preliminary remarks, said,
he understood The was not necessary for him 10 60
into any Liberation whether these words acton
able themsevos and be would come down TO the point
whether these words spoken were privileged com
municaton. Where party speaks o. his belief OF the
character Of her, he may so speak without being
poeed To ordinary action Of SANDER The law does
truth, but namuch the honest belief OF
the party should expressed the Az direcs that the
m mn 20 ~
appear that they were ooken mabcousy Ine ques
ton then comes how are words spoken 70 be proved NAH
ciousf would be very hard II the burthsn thrown
on the plaintiff prove that there malice well
10 chow they not true Now certsinly " not
true that pan enter the heart Of the defendant
and thence bring forth the secret rcster OF motive
motive may be impossible W show. Malice y an
ingredient In all SANDERS, and where the Court may pre-
sumo the asty Of the words malice naturally be
sumed from the fay don't mean that theytre fa-e In
point fa but thai they false and that the defend
knew H. II citizen withsn show OF morality makes
communication as 10 the character conduct OF ser.
want which he knows to be false then malice h 10 DO pre-.
sumed; n In that aitudca man, under pretended good
faith what he know 70 be fake the Inv
malice We have furDhed evidence 10 this jury that when
Mr. Bowen made this communication he knew IL 10 be
fase, and when show evidence which clearly estab
sbes that be asserted what lac knew 10 be false then
furnish pres umptOn a malice The communication OF Mr.
Bowen was volunteer cotnmnncaion MI Colo did not
ak him any hiug respecting the character or the panuh
fowes had been previously In the employ OF Bowen A
McNamee and the time of the speaking Of these words
W Mr. Cole he in tie employ OF tho house %
Geo. Wood Co, Of which MI Cole was partner
Taking tho occasion Of the speaking the relations Of
the parties the idea which these verbs would Conveys
notorious thar, &c.-these words alone ac;ionabe
per The inquiry then ts, were these words trueg We
have the letter Of Bowen scNsmee given W the plaintiff
the coec Of Fowcs employ mept by them Ia the
VIBRATION with Mr. Coe the defendant speaks OF letter
which 1--WE" wrote. and does refer 70 AZ a letter
done by member Of the firm, but saying I'VE" i'm
plies his oonseut II and the consent Of all the Arm The
ieier and he knew u, and may infer that
be himself. The morality that the gentlemen
the other eide ssand up by 10 morality which In their
private Hfe they depreeais, every man who knows
them will say they would u possible that a can
give Bowen and kckamee Qualification" In his depart
ment and be notorious hr," or do they that all
the he told their sausfactony Surely they
not mean and say soThe prcsuupuun 10
that knew the mans character when be m their
establishment and be made those charges against
him subsequently he knew them 10 be false. rhs
party bringing suit bound 70 rove thai they were
false and have proved tho go and have prsrss
focd evidence that he kpe~ them 70 be false They had
also the testimony Of Mr. Carter, which shows Mr..
Bowen said be would be- perfectly just aed In recon-
mendne M kowles 70 friends In Cincinnati, a., durire
The time he had bcen with them, his character pr
fecty satisfactory. He knew the assertion to be False
R~sxl ~. IA 4 -