The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-05-18
OUkT VI 4 sNkHAb bsSSiDl
Before Judge Russell.


pOrprH pAy-EylptStH poR ms UuTvw
Boon after ten O'Clock yesterday morning tbs rial Of
Thomas N. Carr, charged ibeing Mr. 5aseed, Dor.
pcrAion Counsel, resumed
Dir. Whiting counsel for The defendant, continued his
Argument on the admssitiy OF Mr. Carrs letter OF INC
2esh February, In which no dlsavo sed any malicious
nvee towards Mr.. Buseed.
The learned gentleman said that Saturday he sugge
cd that he had authorities 70 cabm TO the consde
ration OF The Court that the defendant had right read
the letter In evidence. had been deciaei In Eogls1d
and In unis country that for the purpose supporting
civil prosecution and sustaining the allegation malice
or in other words, 70 provo tho ~ shich tho
author Of the alleged libel governed, subsequent
publications. tending W prove malice adraItted IN
denoe The a. nis prsus In England YER oounaIc
tory u2cn hs subjsci, Of them admitting subsc-
qu,nt publications whether hey relate 70 the Same
subject matter alleged 70 be beous not Other
Of Tho court bad excluded sabscy uont publications
they related 70 other matters that might IN themselves
form tbs suhie Of an independent libel We had fol-
loved me doctrine OF Tho latter rule 10 England IN MS
country The whole OF this subject bad rcosntiy under
gone very critical ob-orvalon The Court Of Appeals
the case OF pro~cr, Ia whsh The doctrine held by
own fupremo Court, that subsequent publications. OF
independent h,olous meteor not reerror 10 the same
subject complained Of In tho suit could not be given
evidence even 70 prove the quo anino" Tina. doctrine
ss asserted nov by the present Court OF Appeals, and
he the speaker) supposed 70 be tbs present OF the
land The question never had arisen been decided
t5oratyey, 20 far he had been able 10 discover that
the defendant mrht introduce evidence shos his quo
dnmo; but wa pcrmNed on tho part OF tho
plaintiff u must, therefore, surely be permitted
on tho part OF the defendant II Toast In criminal
lie apprehended that II would be admitted a civil
upoo the ground thai would Affect The question Of
damages, and II 80 how much moro would II be allowed
in orimns case whore tho party would DO responsible
only uTcu the ar ,und cf express malice Ordinarily Mr.
Whiting obseryed in The trial Of indictment all the
prosecutor had 70 do vss 70 show The publication the libel
and thai the defendant with cation
an there be rested But In Mis- the seemed
70 have abored under The knowledge Of tho law that II
was necessary FOR lin, before he would convict Mr. Carr
70 show absolute and express malice He endeayored
do IT, but your Honor viii perceive that no DID Il cautiously
carefully AMI studedy, BY excluding from this stand
the eniy witness by whom II could be proyed--the
complainant hinsen-who sat by hs side from
the commencement OF tho prosecution TIL The pre-
sent period, and be has not gone upon the stand
10 prove malice. Mr. Whiting said that the rentcman
who repre- sented The prosecution was moi an officer q III.
people, but the private paid Of The prosecutor
for whose conduct o. The he had not word say
although he might by abundant authority, show that
public criminal prosecution could DO carried against
any prisoner upon an indictment without the presence
of the public prosecutor 1s ellen, was wiling stand
on fall by the q the land and the iustss Of MS de-
fence lie stood erect upon the absolute privilege which
the law gave him. and n he Obliged 10 turn 70 the Jury
boz Tor protection, and they ai TO protect him,
willing TO be handed over 10 the tender perces Of the
Court was the first time be (Mr whitney had ever
heard announced IN court OF lust, 30 which counsel on
judges both Of the law and OF The facts and that
the Court had nothrg 10 do but shape the evi
derce The speaker contended from English and American
that the Court had a right 10 deter
heher the paper complained o. ws 10 The udg noa Of
The sT, hbtlous, Ne maintained that the face Of Mr.