New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-11-16
LAW NI'ELLIG ENCE.
MARINE CoURT-TRIAI TERx-Nov. l5.-Before Judge
AIKER
LIBEL sUrr-wARRES ACT. OWENS

LIBEL sUIT-wARRES ACT. OWENS.
The Jury having been impanneled, Mr. Stevens,
counsel for defendant moved that the complaint be dismissed
for OF sufficient Of action The complaint IL fer
incl stated have been pubished IN !he Neu York crif
oil Oct g. 1901 ayermen Ia the complaint, IS
that the publication wss made o the purpose Of
holding he plaintiff ~ 70 public contempt dcue epd scoin
aain there is no evidence that Tbc Warren. the plain
IN vss merchant carrying on business ~ the time OF the
publication Fnrtbe the lbe alcg TO be against iAe hm
of John Thomas Warren, only one Oh "n'n sD'' " '''
Alter argument the Court denied the motion, and
~ 49, ~ r,cnv, the sum of 500 damages for libel
published in The Herald and uTni he'd 70 lhat plt
he nstrnmentay Of the defendant. The character o. me
.lsiptG has been assaed and wanony despoied py tn
plbi on aud he verdict 70 vindicae that character
Tts 2catGn PapoI' to oe y y1g %" In Of
n be- found him EFF Inbi bed 20 the world IS ."inus
That cave was entitled heloY ag pshsI anu g1Id
nothing worthy Of special mention b9l me y. = ns.'e
nevertheless publstes report headed Loose WY u
M,tadug Mercantile Busine,,p "
NJ Stevens objected 10 Ieadug the libel until It should be
connected ailh the defendant az,
Mr. BeLWe propose 10 show that there rnArse IN S
p.p.r whieh We shall preve sHd shall show that Dir
over was the reiponsbie reporter ~ TINS ca'e'
David Russell Lee va. won o. tes. . ,ns i.w
reporter f.r The Commercial Adrc fijer Inc WOiq anu
Iie Couier and Enquirer before It was Transferred 70 i"s
ot beer Inv porter or me H.rcid Tor twenty years; he
hsd pohsb, heen in Court be Goth Of sep'embef last
havi, been up there almost every day -.
o. Ma. YOU ia Court during the trial Of kellogg against
va,in Copr, during the trial Of case, bot do not re-
member lie t, NJ owen in the and asked mn
idle atout either he or said that tfeTs was poln'
there worth reporting the statute Of limitations c
tsnly heard soethng estsblih the point In my hion
that t ea iu.s eating case, .-,,.s.,......,
o. DID YOU see Mr.. Owen after the triai Of tins case
nae. him in the PARK | could not tell 81 what tiue
O. When you saw him sferw ard what took place between
Mr. Galbrsith-I sppea here behalf Of the wi'ne"e' to
preclude them from answering any question when "oeo
have tendency to erinae ,hein'e'ss ig ~, ~, Crt
Tia b. Is bound 20 answer T. the wne.s IL NOT Do1a 9.
ssswsra question when ii may subject hin to criminal
L IT, ... der rr .ls.
The Court having cartioned the witress accordingy
A. saw Mr. owen in the PARK and he told e that re had
q " hat else did he state 70 you! . r.
A. could tell you The thing has gene out oil my mem
O. What sgency had you in this matter Of the report
A. That SIR ,m not bound to answer at all .,....
O. Did M Owen furnish you paper co. tanning ''Ae
ment or a report Of the Of kelogs .st bstei .,
A. No Sir All he told me was that lie got sVe'ai'' OF
som. ijt,ls general conversaiion about H.
O Did you furnish Mr. kemps.on report
Mr.. Gsl5raish repeated The canton AT. n.o,,,o,
Mr. DsvsssI hin, we are entitled to en- sns"er 70 tha
one.tion lt jsa legitimate question .
HE Court--The witness is not Obliged to crminiie him
self ,,,
Mr. Gabrah-Any 'ha: dcyer such paper is liable.
The Corrt-Certainly; h. 70 held responsible.
q Did you receive from Mr. Owen sny comUuuieaton Ia
writing n the form Of statement OF report Of case entitled
o. Iced TO- sid objection Overruled.
told YOU before do not know what the tide was Do
O. 6iS you receive statement or report Of any from
Mr Gabrath asaln cautioned the witness and advised HIN
A. dscln. to answer; told you bad verbal eOHHu-
M GslSrai hI have no objection the witness answer,
ing tbs. he received dozen papers IRON Mr o~en ne VI"
A. .ub.equcuty did receive paper from him. memo.
rsrdum Of c.se co know whether Was THIS case or
I NOT. tecru dc not Temcu oer. . .
Mr. Ale1luder Hepburn, C,iher n The Herald ONCE ws'
sworn na rrruusd lie testified that be did not know p n
lively The circulation Of The Ioid he had seen copy Of
thu S1adsy Herald Of Oct. iso bar he ca n"s Ano~
whittier Iub,aeds The Heynt ohee or not "a" ~.
10, Al tho day he not pren. usnsy at The
o. DO Vol lnow copy Of The Ne Yoyk Hvale when yon
A. can see what I. on the heading Of the paper.
The Cou-1le QUESTION Is WHETHER you can idenuiy H.
A l d.cir. 20 sn.v er that the present occasion
l. hat he N York Hs,d'i Of october l0oll copy
he. ali III. appearance Of The Heroid but ssnnci
positive say that that published or printed in IeHs'la
q. Who i. the law reporter Of Ia. Esg. York H,aa,
A. There /. gentleman set down io tlsi sr heinp'
Mr. Lee recalled, bot new facts were elected.
John Nsmpslou, l.r reporter If Ihe H.yId va swSrn
,e,Gsd thai h. .upposed The Herald was Published on
October o. should kink TIL. correct copy Of e wa
pe,sn, - the publication be furnished nearly al ire law
,r Ss: TO- ,s.' 6. sRs he DID not '''''' ' '
% Di yor receive report In that from any one A.
issne 10 answer that decline to answer whether sm In
any way connected with that report. ,.,c.,,-.
Mr. Owens, tho decndant was sworn and testified ths,
he wa, counsel ia the OF Kellogg as Bsse representing
the defendant. ~
q Did you furnish report Of III, cas-, Of ksloss ss''
Bss'' tried in tho "'''he '0u'' on H' ''' 0'
Mevrs. GAbrAh aud stevens objected ObJection sps-
tanned upon the sronnd that the W sathough dsisndsn
I'm the css, was Obliged cimlrate himself IL the
were h0cou there would b. no cause Of scto
and The IL 20 have bee1 noeous IN
which furnishing the report would subject the witness 70
a criminal pTosf outon -, , :, II, Al,
Aner fw rninpotant questions Mr. Bell asfed that the
plaintiff should be allowed Withdraw juror on the ground
OF surprise TAey had TO suppose tlat by the eva
douce ne whom they had called they could prove
lie publication and connect with the defendants and It
urnrceAfy 70 state Why they had failed TO do So Inc
| necessary proof could be- ned At :tme Was allowed
BIZ Stevens objected that tns Msho Ooui' naa h' power
| 10 permit the Withdrawal OF a juror. - -
fhe CouitI will not prejudice the right OF the plaintiff
and A. there doub. Of the power OF the Court
the compsiot vii be dsm.od snd new action can be COM
ueHceo The Gaze accordingly dismissed