The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-02-20

The siAHasr Case Among the -oecd anxc,sr
dAnt-
nARRB COUNT.
Before Hbn- Judge Thompson and Jury.
FB R.-Rsssceu Green u J. III. Hobart Brown-Tsh
sAee vss resumed this morning Alter counsel had con-
Guided summing up, Judge Thompson delivered eabo-
ySss charge, Of which the following Is outline:-He
sSdGentemen Of the Jury, this action Of more than
rdinav interest and importance II becomes such, partly
q account Of the prominent positions which the respective
pArsss occupy In the church. and partly from the emo
sons is likely TO engeHder In the breasts OF portion,
lsst, of the religious community. In most Of this
description but very little interest awakened, save hsl
whch felt by The immediate parties 70 the controversy
True Is, the reputation OF the humoest member OF 60
oaety entitled all the protection which courts and
ynree empowered 70 exercise in its behaf; aud wne
the feelings Of such quite susceptible TO the poison
Gus breath Of Islander those who move IN the higher
ks OF life, yet equally {rue the injury 70 ane com
tormer than IN the latter case Ihere yet another cir
cnms.ance which mparts peculiar character
70 the history OF this particular TRANSACTION
Both The painih and defendant, viii be remembered,
believers n the evangelical faith-were
hers Of the parish church-hsd worshpped God at
the altar. The defendant Ill ed she high
- holy place OF rector the plaintiff position less promi
- but not less essential and important, in and the
= sacred temple The church. as is generally known
emny eDions her clergy from administering the Eucha
rkt 10 the evil liver and the wrong doer yet find the
plaintiff partakng Of the holy communion from the paten
sacts and circumstances, repeat gentlemen of The ry
render this case one Of unusual and 10 extent pain
fai interest Be your own religious sentiments what they
may-Pr u sstant Catholic, Jew Methodist Pres BY
seraD Friend Baptist Episcopaiaa-I sure hazard
nothing IN say ing that you fully agree with the Court in
The estimate which they have placed upon its character
and importance. Ibeepeak for Il your patient and
fl consideration. was frankly stated to you by
sci for the plaintiff in his opening, that the motive which
prompted the commencement Of this suit not the hope
Or wish Of acquiring pecuniary gain, but to afford
himself public opportunity establish his entire
and Of enabling his TO satsfya court and jury
possble that the mputaton complained OF was utter
ed by him without malice and for good and usthable
ends. the testimony IN the could justify you in
arriving such results then indeed would your verdict
give entire satisfaction not only TO the friends OF the
Episcopal church, bat to the religious community gene
raj shall not attempt TO magnify the beyond the
proportions warranted by the testimony. go beyond
eke line OF duty feel called upon to perform Here the
Judge read the libel complained Of which follows
That IN June, 1857, IN the city Of Brooklyn, the
defendant intending 10 ipjure and defane him said
one Spencer d. c. Van Bokkelen that when Mr.. Green
ft the city short time previous bis visit to Virginia
ne went there as ais defendans) brothers agent, 10
purchase certain mining lands and that his (defendan D
brother James T. Brown furnished him with the funds
make said purchase and that Mr. had purchased
the lands in his name and endeavoring to hold
the property for his own benefit and thus defraud his
tdetendant's) brother" The Rev Mr.. Brown also
said he confident that Mr. Green's actions
had been Of such nature that tee proceedings his
(defendsnts) brother had instituted against Green
wod result his beng sent 70 the state prison. The
SANDER Is also alleged TO have been spoken TO other
parties who were vestrymen o. the same church.
continued.
facis his No crime whatever has been proven
10 have been committed by the plaintiff, Mr.. Green. The
Court said that the charge made against Mr. Green was
probably pre ated upon the proceedings in the of
Ricaa is against Green, IN which Green was charged
with chspg property for John Z. Brown. brother Of
the defendant n ns Green 81 own name that there was
proof IN se papers in that suit OF the commission OF
sIy crime by Green: that the words n this
onabe pre- and that malice IS therefore TO be inferred,
but hai mlie lay Dc -eDelel b. testimony ten ing
20 estsbsh IA ,t he Cont ssd thai Tier careful
refeceC- -ce s-cs-- - NcEl1 charge mater Of
haooorA Anu iliSs SsrS ~ E-T'eo c cnc1-ecilA;
Eoch OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES 49, rcse gelgA ZI3e the 4
ordinary curse M avr1 s1s.sss from good uaoOyes /
and tcr l'rtnH1e mus he tsfert-1L -1st snow al /
krrazsvsiy ziat JIG slL,ed ~ malice. The |
onGs Wa lpun nm . sccE IL. vas uttered without
malee Wv, Nv ICES ne csfentani satisfy the AIRY
that poru e have been content With utter
ing The SANDER, orl Re hs endorsemtnt-he not
only procams the SANDER but he follows up by srt
ing from all he could learn Green Justly deserved 10
Be sent 70 the State prison Though this Court room was
The place 70 crize the conduct of vet The
Judge could not help saying that the plain duty OF
PENDANT was 70 have gone 10 Mr. Green and stated him
The charges thai had been preferred against him. 70
TIE occasions embraced 70 make these charges were al
tines when the primary object Of tie deieEGAni vas 70
49, o. W e Sss s~rs % se SL1 i
marked that he was surprised tie warmth and yea With
which The Court was charging the Jury on behalf Of the
ylsint,f
yurt rebuked Mr. Nash, saying that he was sur.
rsed thar SUCH an interruption should proceed from such
source the Court may have spoken vehementy
70 -fey calm snd aispassonate, he had motive bit TO
perform his duty the parties the case were TO him
utter strangers and the Court would consccntousy and
tealess.y discharge It's duty, matter how dispeasng
MAY be 20 the counsel the parties Oh ether side In
continuing address the Jury the J1fge SAD eracr s
plaintiff this IL fe.0n the defendant has per
pe.ra.ed SANDER on him. without probable cause aud
with malice the fcnGant had uttered SANDER with
vel ounded belief its truth, and from good motives
and Tor justdable ends The Court would be sincerely
glad tie evidence would justify tue jury duding that
there probable for the defendant 10 uterng TIE
words COMPLAINED o. The counsel for the defendant had
Epoken Of the position OF his centhat be was clergy
rnar-and seemed 20 claim for him some in aunues on
that account The Court proceeded by stating thai while
he yielded % in respect ana admiration Tor the
sacred Office held by the defendant still thai no posoon
should shield a man from the Consequences o. Misconduct
ana vet is fact within the knowledge Of every man
that the office OF clergyman, AMI the position OF tho pulpit
he fills both oentmcs prosuted 10 the level OF the
politician and tue stump, and that some cergymen IN
these reg ons instead OF DOING their Masters viii IN SUB
hitting themselves 10 the powers that be, are found
eedon and treason u the Union the constti
ton and the laws The Court, In conclusion, finally
charged the jury that they believed that the defendant
uttered the an6erous words from good motives and for
unsuitable ends he entitled 70 their verdict but 90
the contrary they believed that the words were uttered
with malice then the plaintiff was entitled TO verdict.
The Jury retired. and in short time returned With
verdict for the plaintiff for $50 damages.