The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-13
Edwin Forests Libel Suit Against N.
WILTSHIRE Judges Charge on the Law OF


WILTSHIRE Judges Charge on the La" Of
Libel.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Before Hon. Judge Hilton.
| APRn. 12-Eti,oin Forrest Us. N. r. WWH.-sr "eraro
proceeded to sum up tho part Of the defendant lie
said there are things to constitute libel Ine rst
must be the assertion Of fact and not the mere oPnon
or belief founded circumstances bes we're Drought
for certain crimes, some charges that nave eng'h
breadth and thickness. You may express AL opnon or
belief if warranted by circumstances and that opinion
or belief is no libel The next essential of libel 49, that
the fact you asser. be false and the party uering
I, must know or believe be false Fasehood is the
very essence of libel Counsel then briefly stated his
prorositiors The first essential of libel Is malice false
hood and malice the foundation Of an action for libel
and If it were not the articles and communications
which appear free press in free country would not
be permitted Mr. Gerard continued to address the jury
on those propositions and to comment upon the evidence
for time, nterspersing his remarks with ms usual
flashes Of wit ana eoquence.
The Court then took brief recess.
Mr. Van Buren,, in summing up for the plaintiff said
1t has happened in this az in many other actions where
defendant is summoned TO answer TO charge made
against him by plaintiff he finds it much more con.
venen to complain Of delay in bringing the suit and
prejudces Of jury reference to parties other than
himself and ask their verdict not upon the issue pre-
sented but upon mmateria and irrelevant matters He
then proceeded to review the testimony and comment
upon with FORCE energy and eoquence and submitted
IN
one word Of evidence for its provocaton He asked
where all the witnesses for the defences And alluded
to the fact that perhaps the first instance known in
which the plaintiff In libel suit commenced his case
by going himself upon the witness Stand
and subecung himself to rigid cross-examination.
In conclusion, Mr. Van Buren, said, this country has
shown immense progress in almost everything. II has
shown this progress in material improvement-the old
travelling mail coach giving place 70 the steamboat the
giving place to the teiegraphthe few scattered people
growing to be some Eve and twenty millions, thirteen
Cv.A A~Axy
vancng has with rapid strides and the material i'm
provement has made no less rapid advance intellect in
genius and in arts the simple poet OF the early history
qurementsto Halleck Bryant and Iongfellow the pull
pit oratory Of early day has given place to the eo
quence which we now hear In every department Of
art in every department Of science in every physical
department. Improvement and progress were Writ.
me to say to you that there is one art
which is quite equal to the several l have mentioned
in the dramatic art which keeps alive the classical eu
sions Of such Knowles, Bawer SHAKESPEARE, which
is Illustrated by the genius Of rama Kean, Cooke and
Kembe In this great country whatever criticisms may
have be made upon the career Of Mr. Forrest be has
stood here twenty five years at the head of that pro
fesson Applause in court which was suppressed) Not
only that, but unchaenged and unreproached as man,
ed rreproschable The only assault upon his chara,-
has been made in the case to which your attention is
called, and It is for you to say what under the cir
cumstances Of this case assuming them to be such
have stated should be your verdict you could restore
the plaintiff to the content peace that he enjoyed
the time these charges made against himn you
could bring back 70 him the happiness that he knew be
this discovery, which was destructive to his peace
we should require other certainly no additional re-
ward Gentlemen, is not in your power, IN the air
administration OF justice TO do So
Judge Hilton then charged the jury He said that the
duty Of the Court in these to define what in law
constitutes libel and then 1t becomes the duty OF the
jury to say whether the publication falls within the den
is calculated to njuIe the plaintiffs reputation The law
declares that every publication either by writing print
ing pictures which charges upon or imputes to any
person that which renders him liable to any punishment
which calculated to make him infamous, odious or
author and publisher towards the concerning
The publication made is not necessary that the pub
lcaton should be scandaous constitute libel II lie
enough II s tendency is TO produce an III opinion Of the
person referred to- makes him disiiked hated
brings him into disgrace or lessons him In the estimation
Of his his fellow And il Is mmaseral whether was
intended by to inure the party complaining The qnos
ton whether such the tendency Of the publication
II within these rules the article is deemed TO be beous,
then actual proof Of malice not required beyond proving
the publication Of the article complained Of The law pre-
the publication TO have been malicious and any
justification extenuaton that be shown must
proceed from the defendant In this Gaze the plaintiff has
relied alone upon this legal presumption but has in
trodrced evidence tending to show that the statement
premises upon which the publication to proceed
untrue in fact. And this additional evidence is,
seems relied upon to aggavae or increase the damages
have the desired effect upon your minds dismiss with
the remark that statement Of matter as fact, that
cioua; and proof Of the falsity, standing unex
planned, is equivalent to proving actual malice
In considering the pubcaton, you must look AZ IL as
WHOLE in all its parts bearing IN mind that It's tendency
and intent be gathered from it's entire reading having
in view the effect with which it purports to have been
pub ished But must not be understood that this rule
be carried far as to permit party TO mix up In
publication SANDER with praise and escape the conse
q1ences upon the theory that as the bane and the anti
dote we're administered at the instant OF time
injury could result The jury 10 disregard all allu
siens 70 delay in bringing this suit the law allows suit
to be brought within years and ii appears that this
cause was commenced within that period; they would
disregard the dispositions the former trials and the
! divorce suit, / forbear any comment upon the pub
LEGATION (which the plaintiff makes the subject Of
his complaint before US; whether 1t is q be
or not Is question Of fact, as ! have
and are exclusively theirs questions Of law exclu
siveIy belonging TO the Court BY neither encroachne
upon the province Of the other will only administer
the law properly, but will assist u the administration
that handed juetce which Ia the intent Of the Law
to accomplish. sou find that the publication was libel
lous judged by the rules and definition have stated yol
then TO ascertain and determine to what extent thu
plaintiff has been injured by ii, what damages has he
tanned and which 10 be graduated by the intent OF tn
defendant and n IN your judgment, the publication
malicious you not bound 10 adbere 10 the strict lin
Of compensation but may, by sincere verdict, al ono
impose punishment on the defendant and hold up an ex
ample TO the community Controlled by these views 20
will render what should be your verdict and render 70
such an amount as in your Judgment the case demands
bearing IN mind that is your privilege, you find tn
publication to be iibsilous, that you may award SUE
damages as viii not only compensate the plaintiff but wi
punish the defendant.
The jury were directed to bring in a sealed verdict
"Wednesday (this) morning
Shipments OF Candles to California.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
F1fI.-