Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1860-07-27
From the Memphis Daily Enquirer.
Libel SUIT.

In our last issue, we stated that the jury. in the
suit Of DR.. Gayle vs. Dr. Shanks, for SANDER, had
rendered q verdict for the Plaintiff Of sc demages;
and that, ~ il was case Of importance, as being
the first o. the kind ever tried in this city, we
would endeavor to give the particulars in our
next issue, From a source which deem reliable,
we have gathered the following:
This WAS suit brought by Dr. I. c. Gayle
vs. DR.. l. Shanks. tor libel. laying the damages
at IS 900, for u statensat made and published. by
DIR. Shanks, OF an snacc0sntahlc mistake made at
d.. 0ayles's Drug Store. IL filing prescription
10 December. 1855. DR.. Shanks published, in IL
pamphlet Of s"me 10 pages,ss*A history of tho
origin, progress aud ext nsian OF the Yell lw fc.
yer in Memphis, that fall. with some account Of
its syuspto,l,s, treatment and fatality" Near the
conclusion Of that pamphlet. he reported all the
cases he had treated lint had terminated fatally
and the ci~ra.ns,auc connected with each OF the
elk fatal casssrepote ted Tho 9th OF these cases is
reported as fellows:
"Ibe 9th was a case Of medium violence in the
attack; hut the prescription of thirty gains Of
oninine, 10 be taken the second morning. was put
up ut DR.. Gayle's 'tanic Drug Store, and instead
oil three dvses of quinine, Of ten grains EACH
two drains 100 grains) Of Acetate Of Lead. with
small portion Of quaine, was put up in ono paper.
Of which she took from forty u sixty grains. in
the murning, in two doses No mpre sion having
been nude by the quininr and the stomach hus-
ing been unusually irritable. led To the discovery
tha, she had taken the wrong medicine. To say
the least VI this unaecounrable mistake in filling
the prescription, the stomach was rrtatod and
the day was lost with improper medication. Tho
partial Subsistence Of the fever on tho fourth day,
was attended with much complaint Of numbness,
followed by oopious black vomit and death, the
next day"
This was the whole mattor--the foundation Of
the suit for libel. The case conducted with
ability iy Mr.. Curriu and Col. Payne, for the
piainiif. and ~ Judge Brown AMI King and
Chancellor Scotia, Tor the defendant, before an
intelligent jury
In the able prosecution and defence Of this suit,
the facts stated in the pamphlet. as we have quot
ed them. ere proved it is understood, to the
istaetion Of the Jury. The iuryis also understood
to hive been satisfied that the publication wns
made for the public good, and that the statement
made OF The unaccountable mstuko" at Dr.
Gayie's Drug Store. deemed due t. the public.
iNN Now, as the object Of the Law aud legal decis
ions is Ia preserve ard promote the public god.
the inquiry may naturally arise. why, in this case
the jury should first bling in a verdict for only
ten cents damages, and then upon being informed
that less than fire dollars would not carry the cost
against the Defendant, should amend their ver-
dict, and bring in SIR dollars, IN mako tho defend
and Day the costs. We understand that the jury
furnishes this explanation: They were satisfied
from NIL facts and circumsti nces Of the case, Of
the inn of the defendant but in the instruc-
ton OF the Court, the opinion was expressed that
DR.. Shanks had not the legal right TO make the
publication; This seemed to make il impei atvc
that damages should he assessed, and prevent the
jury from deciding. as il - understood they
would, otherwise, have DONE that the case was not
acti,nable.