The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-12

which appeared the HERALD the 18th Of March 1876.
producing the publication In the HERALD TO show that The
article Is not proper criticism on IT,
The Court denied the motion, without considering il ne
ceesary to give any reasons ut length.
recess was here taken for twenty minutes. On re-
assembling,
the dsconsnusDce Of the suit in the Unitod States Court
and O receipt for the costs.
Mr. Gerard bad no objection 70 the oer being accepted
at future period after the defence He
then proceeded open the case for the defendant and
could help that the motive OF the present suit
was 70 open afresh a that had been long since
determined and desire to change the public mind with
regard 10 the difficulties between Mr. and Mrs. Forrest
How does the matter standY Mr. Willis wakes up one
morning that he published in the HERALD
of that day throughout the world in certain deposons
taken in between Mr. Forrest and his wife, that he
the marriage bed Of Mr. Forrest and e that of
wife, He heard the thousand neWo boys proclaim to
the world that he was sssaied 10 these dispositions BY
servant boy and woman-that tie had taken advantage
the hospitality OF Mr. Forrest and abused his wife, but
directly for the evidence did go the truth Of
aser and every step he took corner he turned
every door he passed, be was met with a copy OF the
most widely circulated paper upon the ace Of the globe,
and held to the scorn and indignation Of the world
soop Of any other house, he the same thing pro-
not circulation enough by steam and ali the powers Of that
immense concern, and the appliances Of science the
herald not known in all quarters Of the globe where
not sufficient 70 publish his name, and that of his
wife and brothers, to tho world through that means
He did not know what tho jury would do they found
jewellers and guilty Of offences that would exile them
from society; he submitted that 1t was gross libel to
fore the Court; Mr. Willis, smartng and bleeding under
the effect gave them such scathng they deserved
and he would be less than man If he had not done so
the dispositions In the HERALD contain charges against
Richard Willis with improper conduct with this unfortu
nate lady mrs Sinclar and there is the Of the
defendant behalf of absent brother aud
reveler in the house OF Mr. Forrest Having spoken Of
the virtues OF Mrs. Willis Mr.. Gerard commended that
MIR. Willis had right editor to comment those
dispositions and he had than the right OF editor
he had tho right of an attacked man TO defend himself
the reason Mr.. Willis was not S0A in Court WAS
that he had been so injured by the assault
the assault committed on him BY Mr. Forrest, and for
which jury gave him So 500 damages Mr. Willis was
in such state OF health that II would be dangerous
bring him here, and he Mr Gerard) advised him to go
home his country residence and told him that he couu
cuonse) would pay any damages the jury might give
against him. Oaughter) He would offer in evidence
the record of the divorce trial to show that the parties
examined that trial. and that the verdict Of the
jury against them. he commended that the article
complained OF was justifabe.
Lewis 7. Warner, physician, examined by Mr. Gerard
Is physician Of Mr.. Willis
Mr. Van Buren, objected to the testimony this witness
b. knew himself that Mr. willis is going about from
place to place. Mr. Gerard tells the jury that he
seed Mr.. Willis to go home, and now he wants to prove
The Court ruled the testimony nadmissiDle: this
action for LIBEL and not inquiry into the state of Mr..
Mr. Gerard then proposed to read the whole of the art
Gle complained Of and of which the plaintiffs counsel had
only read parts.
Mr. Van Buren, objected and cited authorities in support
Of his position. After argument the Court admitted
the reading of the whole of the article with the exception
of the note appended to the third column.
Mr. Gerard then read the article question He then
offered read the note to the article TO explain first
publication, and because answers the evidence adduced
iC nopf Df lna ko
justification and be offered it in mitigation. OBJECTED
and ruled out exception taken he then offered 10 read
the dispositions published in the New YORK HERALD of the
2Sth Of March, 1850.
Mr. Van Buren, admitted the paper produced to be the
New York HERALD, but he objected TO these dispositions
being put in evidence here because they would be-
justification Of the attack made by the defendant and
submitted that the article Just read (he alleged lbe
contain word defence OF the defendant or
his wife, which the counsel says it was his (defendans
high duty 70 do The plaintiff is not connected in any
way with the publication in the HERALD, and it is wholly
Mr. Gerard contended considerable length that they
were admissible and cited authorities. BE also read
from the defendants answer in which he states he
justified by publication which appeared in pamphlet
and in the New York HERALD.
Without any reply from Mr. Van Buren, the Court said
that he did not think the counsel really intended to
insist that the publication admissible The Law did
not recognise that because paper in New York should
that he WAS at liberty TO libel another party IF the
publication Of the dispositions hbeous the plaintiff has
not been connected with by any evidence in this case
q commentary on that publication.
Mr. FaDcher said he thought his Honor had fallen into
an in say that The article complained of not
q commentary on the publication in the HERALD.
The Court still held that the article dscamed being
commentary the publication in the HERALD exception
taken.)
Mr. Fancher then put in evidence the declaration in the
case Of Forrest Willis, in the United States Courts
September, 1851, and other papers in that suit
Mr. Gerard offered the original record Of the divorce
suit In the Superior Court 10 show the date of the
dict, and that Mr.. N. P. Willis Mrs. Willis and Richard
Willis were examined in that case, and that the Court
awarded amony Of s. 900 year 10 Mrs. Forrest. which
has never been paid.
Mr. Van Buren, supposed that suit between q third
party which still pending had nothing do with this
case
The Court did not wish to hear Mr.. Van Buren, and ex
cuded the offer.
Mr. Carpenter then put in evidence the record OF the
dsconnuance Of that suit in the United States Court
cd March 49, 1852 and also the receipt Of defendants
counsel for the costs
Mr.. Fancher then put in evidence the summons for
this suit on the 9th Of March, 1852 before the other suit
was discontinued.
Mr. Carpentier-The answer was sworn to slst August,
Mr. Fanchcr admitted that was put in on or after that
day.
This closed the evidence and the was adjourned 10
this (Tuesday) morning, when counsel will sum up.