New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-17

which take oil tDlS casei anu nave July W
the decision that have already made. Tbs question,
il seems to me, might have been decided before we
came down 20 this trial, upon demurrer to .ae
answer which would perhaps have settled the legal
principles under which this trial should take place.
But the question is here now upon the pleadirgs ss
they exist, and must be Disposed Of. But will not
say that my opinion may not change hereafter, upon
further reflection further arguments but at present
it il decided and clear that the construction which
have given TO this libel s the true consrnctoni and
being 80 it involves charge of personal corruption,
and is only susceptible Of deieDse by proving state
of facts that brings 1t up to that point OF proof ~ Is
not enough that you make proof OF general corruption
in the Legislature; that TO- 20 or 80 men were person.
ally corrupted; that does not show that the pantif
in this case was actuated by corruption or mer-
cenary motives In the part which he took In
that legislation. That would be trying biz case
while you tried the matters and case OF other corrupt
men; and no principle OF justice, l think, would
authorize that This inquiry would be undoubtedly
very interesting one and very important one; aud
may confess to very pardOnable curiosity myself to
have this whole investigation opened up, and the
public would doubtless receive beDeht from IL. IL
would require doubtless no great stretch OF the mag
nation 10 conceive state of facts which would both
asonish and shock the public mind. But this IL not
the arena 10 which these things TO be tried. We
not engaged in legislative investigation, we are
trying the rights of individual pure question Of
libel between private parties; and IN 30 trying, IN
accordance with the rules Of law, are in my judg-
ment confined to the precise issue which ttink Is
only e itimate before this Jury and which have in
dicated in the decision that these offers not proper
but the proof must be COZ fined TO the precise point
which have indicated in deciding the question.
After short consultation, the defendants counsel
made the following offers TO prove:
OFFERS TO PROVE.
First: The defendant offers TO prove that the aets
set forth In the answer were severay passed by the
votes of members of the Assembly, Of whom majority
were brbed vote therefor and who voted therefor
corruply; aud the defendant claims that this proof
admissible for the purpose of usiyng portion OF the
matter charged IA beious proposing 10 follow u up
80. i,.. nroOf iustifying the issne.
Excluded. Exception for defendant.
Second: The defendant offers TO prove the same
facts in mitigation of damages.
Excluded. Exception for defendant.
Third The defendant Offers TO prove the same facts
for the purpose of showing the truth of the article not
embraced In the complaint, but read in evidence IN ag
gravation of damages.
Excluded Exception for defendant.
Fourth: The defendant offers 10 prove the same
facts and that the plaintiff voted for and supported in
debate the passage Of those acts, with notice that
majority of those who supported them were bnhed,
and that certain Of the parties soliciting their passage
and seeking the benefit thereofhad bbed them, claim
ing that this evidence il admissible for the purpose OF
justifying the article alleged TO be lbelous
Excluded. Exception for defendant.
Fifth Offers same facts az in last proposition In
mitigation Of damages.
.SiIth: Offers Same facts TO show the truth OF the
article from The TRBUsE read in evidence in agra
walton of damages
Excluded Exception for defendant
SereHth. Offers 10 show that certain members OF the
Assembly who voted for the Railroad bills mentioned
in The answer did under and in pursuance Of cor"
rupt agreement with parties named az grantees OF the
franchises conferred In the acts apporton and divide
the proceeds Of such franchises exceeding two millions
Of dollars between them and private friends Of such
members, embracing among others the brother and
brother-inlaw Of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff
with notice OF these facts and for the purpose OF secur
ing .uch benefit 10 his brother and brOtbern-law and
knowing that such bills preiudcs to the public
interest voted for and advocated them in debate and
exercised bis influence over other members OF the
House 20 their passsRe-the defendant claiming
that this evidence Ii admissible IN Jutincaon OF the
charge Of corruption.
Excluded. Exception for defendant.
Eighth: Offers 10 show the zane facts, with the further
fact that the plaintiff in violation Of the rules Of the
House. permitted his brother and brotherinlaw, and
other parties TO be benefited to be admitted upon the
floor Of the Assembly during the sessions thereof when
they were entitled thereo the defendant claiming
that from all these facts the Jury would have tne
right TO infer corrupt intent the part Of the plaintiff
Excluded. Exception for defendant
Ninth. Offers TO show all the facts stated In the
foregoing propositions. Ginning that Jury have
right 70 infer thereirom that the plaintiff IN voting for
said acts respectively did from corrupt motives and
for private objects in violation Of bis oahs as men,
Der OF the Assembly.
Excluded Exception for the defendant.
We claim that il IL question for the Jury, whether
the article claimed 20 be hbelous charged the plaintiff
with corruption.
The plsintifs counsel retired for a short consuta-
tom and when they returned made the following OBJ
lection:
The plaintiff objects to these propositions, and each
and every one Of them; as insdmssible In evidence
under the ruling Of the Court except that the defend
ant may DO allowed 10 show that the brother and
brother-inAw Of the plaintiff either OF them,
stock in any Of the roads" named in the detHddn
suer {, his complaint and that bis vote upon any Of
the said bills was influenced by sncb knowledge.
The Court sustained the objection, under the ruling
already given.
Exception for defendant
Mr.. PoRTER-We offer 10 prove further, the facts
stated 10 the first defense
Excluded. Exception for defendant.
We offer TO prove the facts stated In the third de-
Excluded Exception for defendant.
We offer 10 prove the facts in the fourth defense.
Excluded Exception for defendant.
We also offer 10 prove them separately In mitigation
of damages.
Excluded Exception for defendant.
TESTIMONY OF MIR. COSKIISG CONTINUED.
Cross-examnation by Mr. Sedgwick.
q. Did you understand Mr.. Lttlejohn 20 state that
he had any conversation personal interview with
the Corporation officers Of the City OF New-York 7
Objected to on tho ground that the witness bad
already given the language. Objection overruled
Exception for defendant.
A. i IN ierstood Mr.. Litteiohn to FAY that he had
information from the public authorities Of the city, but
not that 1t had been given in any direct personal inter
view or communication.
q. That be had been informed that such were their
views A. That he had Information ON that subioct.
@. Did he say he had seen or had any direc, com.
municaiien with Dir. Bronson A. No, Sir, did not
understand him TO make any such assertion.
q. DO you remember whether, when you made the
statement that these judgments were invalid and
fraudulent, and would be Pet aside-do you remem.
Der whether Mr.. Littlejohn was in the Ilouie A.
am very confident be was.