New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-12-21
NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 81 1864


arrested ahd put in Fort Lafayette, where be had
good time-Icyer had better in his life; there were
foreign ministers, MajorGenerals, many notorious
character and good many lawyers there laughter
bnt when The Government began TO investigate the
affairs OF Smith Brothers and Others, witness thought
they found that no (witncsO was about the only
honest contractor In this country; and when he len
Washington. Secretary Wclles said - very happy
10 shake yon by The hand agan you must not think
had any personal feeling against YOU but We had to
commence with one. and IL might AS well be you
rs anybody; am yeiy happy TO say TO you now that
believe there was no foundation for The proceedings
taken agaust you in fact. the Judge Advocate has
written TO me 10 That effect Smith Brothers, the wit
ness further testified, had been convicted and if they
got less than ten years he would be disappointed.
Lucius H. Gibbs sworn-Examined by Counsel for
Dciendant-I reside in Brooklyn; am the inventor OF
the Gibbs patent carbne; YVES engaged in TIE Ar.
mory in question 10 that the gun properly got
up; saw the factory burning have tinkered with
familiar with the machinery in this factory; was In
only occasionally after Superintendent Keen came In
Keen showed me the bill to the city; did not examine
il at all; alicrwaTd l saw the notice 0f the payment
Of IT,
! @ Did you say that in She claim submitted to the
Supervisors which there $4,000 paid. there
was large sWindlei OBJECTED to, as no Justification
Mr. Pierrcpont--The words Of the libel are; Gibbs.
ihe carbine patenee, says that in the claim submitted
to the Supervisors ON which $4,000 was paid there
is a.lnrge swindle."
The COurt-I think they have right to prove that he
said So 1t Is not necessary for me to rule that Is
authority that will exclude il. 1t would be avery dii
ferent thing IL all fabricated from what it would
taking the libel published precisely as is nov with the
fact proved that Gibbs never said 80.
Mr Emott-Could we call Gibbs to prove hs never
said sof
The Undoubtedly. 1t is evidence in mitisa.
ton will not rule whether II shall 80 beyond that.
j charge the jury upon the effect OF IT.
! Counsel for plaintiffs excepted.
Wtness-I said 50 to a number OF different ind,idu.
sls. told Farley In his office. did not use the
/ b. in the same language).
| q. State whether you gave any reason for the &C.
count being swindle Objected to-ruled Out and
Hamilton Harri, sworn. am u lawyer Of the city
OF Albany; have been practising since 1916; i am
brother Of Senator Harris copy Of The Albany States
sGn shown, dated Oct ~, ls63 containing letter
from 0pdyke TO Ira Harris, dated Sept 2j ls6D saw
the original letter here published; believe 1t was IN
the handwriting OF the plaintiff; ii was sent to my
brother with request that It should be inserted in III.
Eceg,Hg JoBrnsl which had contained some letters "
the defendant and they refused to publish It, then 1t
should be taken to IA SaiesmaA; did the erTand for
Opdyke in the place Of my brother; took the letter 70
IA, .ourrsi, Mr. Dawson not wishing to publish it,
took it To The Standard and Statesmen.
q. Have you the letter requesting It's publications.
A. II u marked private, and was not written To me.
therefore DO not know that have any authority o
Jaoduce IL: the letter was however produced and nen.
iiheD have looked for the original published letter.
hut been able find IL IL Is not in
existence being left with the pablisher.
Cros-eIamiLsd u. Were the two letters now shown
YOU written by your broihcr zone dated sept H. Is63
and the other oct g. 1885, addressed by Ira Harris to
The Painiifli 4. The, are in his handwriting,
Mr.. Eyarts--lo GU dubt offer them In eyidenee'
Mr. Ticld-We shall offer them.
Mr. EvsrtsI DOW offer 10 rend the letter published
in Inc Statesmen. the original having been proved TO be
lost.
Mr. Field-The loss 10 sufficiently proved. / utter
secret when state thnt in the opening OF the
sal for the defendant the letter now offered was read
.l.t al fsa tn m
emphatic terms that IL began with lie. have now
letters from Ira Harris showing that IL was true.
Now. we shah not object to the introduction OF the
letter the counsel have Offered IL We allowed to
prse that every word Of u is true, aud that it
written in consequence Of previous attack in the
pubc prints by the defendant Weed.
Mr.. EyeIts-Do You object asi isi
Mr.. Field-I do not say.
Mr. Evarts-I wait TO understand whether the learned
counsel objects.
Mr.. En0tt-The Court understands US.
Mr.. Field-We object but We will waive our obiec.
'on II they consent that may prove the letter to be
true.
Mr.. Emott then proceeded to argue against the ad.
nissbiliiy % the letter from Opdyke To Harris He
said II could be important only IN connection with the
strange charge in the counsePs opening that IL was
uckihat its publication procured for the purpose
of making q malicious attack on the defendant, and
that It's statement concerning previous letter fiom
Senator Harris fnlse
Mr.. Evsrs--It is offered az n letter Of Opdyke's.
Dir. Emoti-u has nothing 10 do with the case unless
il bears upon the issue and 1t is only the ground OF
provocation TO the libel that IL is relevant. Counsel
then cited sntnorites against It's adInissibiiy. and
among Others the Of Gould sgt Thurow Weed IL
Wendell where II was held that the publication must
be recent that II could be supposed TO be made under
the impulse Of passion.
Mr. Warts urged the admission Of the letter as the
better OF Mr. Opdyke distinct from tho part Of lie pub
Icstion The letter was Dated Sept IS 1863 the Com.
mis- ,ioDcr Claims was appointed in August; Mr.. |
Farley claim was presented, sept. 9. 1863 and not
dis posed OF until October 1853 Ii part of the H.
hellous charge that Mr.. Weed said that while the
claim Of loss the contract in question for making
guns was being entertained before the Committee Mr.
Opdyke was holding the ground, publicly and privately
contracts This letter under Mr. Opdyko's band-his
ow statement published voluntarily showed that he
held that gIound Tor he explicitly says Equally 1
groundes is the charge against me Of being engaged
Inent contracts. nor have any business connection
with the Government Of any kind. direct Indirect
Counsel also urged it's admission going TO mitigate
damages and in the third place 10 show provocation.
The attitude OF the plaintiff this letter that OF
newspaper pugilist, and being worscd In that en-
counter the Law would not encourage his coming into
Court and obtaining satisfaction there
Mr.. Field replied 10 the grounds put forward by Mr..
Eyarts How could the declaration OF Mr.. Opdyke In
September 1863, that he had no Government contract
(Which true, for afser the burning down OF the
Armory Elth July the contract ceased and he had
no further connect with or interest In any Govern
contracD tend in any way To justify the lbei II
they first proved that Mr. Opdyke had any contract
then might be order 10 offer his letter. stating he
had not. Then. the question OF provocafion this
letter called ont by prior malignant attack Of the
defendant on Mr. Opdyke and his SOM and had 1t come
10 this that party could not deny aspersOns his
character, and thn come into Court and punish the
beleri IL this ease proved anything II would prove
whether man whD had press could libel any citizen
at his will. whether there was any remedy He be
Df beng conductor Of the public press TO the base
purposes of private SANDER he could be punished eec
naiy.
Judge Mason said he wa. very clear in his convlc
ions that this letter could not be given In evidence for