Weekly Council Bluffs bugle. (Council Bluffs, Iowa) 1857-1860, 1859-03-09
EnfareafinKEi Libel amaa.

A case Of oonsiderabls importance on
the Law Of libel has been tried at toe
Dutchess Circuit Of Poughkeesie, The
pl&intiE is Mitchell Sanford q lawyer,
now or late of Hudson-the defendant is
E. B. Osborne, the editor Of the Pough-
kecpsie Telegraph. In 1856, the plain
tiff was invited 70 Red Hook, Duchess
county, to deliver an oratI0n at The
Fourth Of July celebration IN that place.
Mr.. Sanford accepted and On that ooca-
sion after the usual topics had been dis
cussed, delivered as the editor claimed
and stated, SO mean and goutemptlbls
abolition haraague." The editor In aa-
dition to mis- comments on the orakton,
said something not very aatterinZ TO the
orator. Mr. Sanford brought An action
fer libel.
The defendant answered, admitted the
publication, and setting up as 3 defence
tha& the article was only fair Critics N
upon the public performance Of the plain
tiff. The Gauss teas tried once, and the
ledge ercluded al seidsBas ga jlsti6ea-
tio7 or mitigation, and The jury gaze q
a vsrdici Of e458 for tiss pIasas.E.
This vas reversed By the General Tern
on argument, and new trial granted -
The case came on before Judge HEewR,
of the Supreme Court. The whaie evi-
dsnce showing what was said By the plain
tiff in his oFations according to the naue-
ory of the audience Was adnlgtea. TIE
ulaintiH himself was witness, aud tried
, his own cause. Mr. Dean defended the
publication as right of tbs pgaas to crit
! ioise o public speaker, who, hs insisted,
occupied the same position as al author,
and that the publication was priYileg-
ed.
! Judge Brown, 10 & very able and siab-
orata charge, instructed thB jury that the
right Of editors of public journals to
eritiaiHs either printed publications or
/ sxtsmporansous speeches was clear and
must be sustained by thg court; that it
was necessary in order to correct public
sentiment that in doing this, al editor
/ had no right 10 attack the personal or
uFiyate character Of the author or speak
sr, and that, so far as the article IN qaes-
ton wAs an attack upon the plaintiff per-
sonally, and not criticism upon biz
speech, it was libellous. The Judge as
the came time told the iaFy thai they
were the exclusive judges Of whether OF
no the article, taken as whole, was 9
/ libel, and if so, what damages the plata
tiG sustained by It's publication.
The easo exsited great interest in TIE
locality where the trial was held, and the
Jury, after trial Of three days, and an
absence OF about three hoara, found .
verdict for ths plaintiff for EbFag aaBla.
! kg" Two fast young men fosmsd 4
partnership in Boston, Mass, for ths
purpose Of doing = retail business, and
opened two stores in different parts Of th,
ofty-one partner In each. their plaS
was crafty, for customers would visit
one of the stogeS, asssa tain the pFica oi
an article, and on stating that Il could
be purchased elsewhere for lsss sum,
would be told there vas bat ons place il
Boston whsre Il eould be done, and thal
was the store ek-~~, the other partner,
who anderaald goods - he infinite dis,
gusg OF the entire traaag shs sams pFaees
was carried on as tAa ethsr asoses and Ia
consequence has been that beth EogssheT
each playing inte the oshaFss hands, hay,
done an immense business, asaa realizes
large profits.