New-York daily tribune., 1865-10-19

aue
ton [. made constitute vllVsed communication or not
IL also a question for the Court ~ decide.
ScJ Although in Cooper sg Stone te demurrer over
ruled the OF disposrg Of it d the reasons o t
alleged 6eons matter se forth necessarily lad the tendency
examination o< and 6verlued demurrer enc express
ground sy foani in the srcle ample personal desa
ton the plaintiff 10 maintain the action But Sudge COUSIN
expressly Slmits Az that fsr eTe'm np'r me H""
ax author desd. piAhe
Stone sld the bar s in th. that there thee were
proper aegations and exposes svernens OF false and ma
il wss done desig to njure him aud brought bin
conemp, and disgrace The complaint In this case con
difficulty Of rsanins tie demurrer upon the ground that 'no
The defendant deInafs that hbe Is set forth IN :hs
nd,r is general demurrer tho Court can only inquire
whether me publication complained Of assuming 1t to have
been fasey maiousy published Of and coneerIns the
having leon published with malicious intent and the plcinh
having thereby not only danssed IN hs Gaining sn1 %
Volume so falsely snd macoay STACKED by the defendant
S hi, 4, ALLEGED in the and the demurr- admits
II il be true that the plaintiff is author by profession de-
sr, hi. moan. of ubs.tence from his literary labor and II
h maciously published of and concerning him
and his literary productions certain faehoods and II he wa
thereby pecunay damaged in che sale Of Of his Literary
productions the ction sunabe though 10 III i'
nature phvileg publication ,
II the circumstances under which communication u.
red or publication Is made be such render the eomm9
,ieaon or publication privileged yet II be notwth'tsna
ing false and uttered published with nais Gus intent
h - sconabe peT 90 Il the words be not soonabe pr
&C. ye: II false and uttered or Pabished with rlaeous IN
tent and pecunisry damage result hreiFom the ae'oh
be maintained All this sles ID in the complaint and 40
mtted by the demurrer -,,. - ,,,,
But 1t i necessary to sustain the complaint on ,hs W.
ground The publication IL gross hbe 1t charges tne
plaintiff with hplong in aid Of the Rebel doctrine OF s.a,e
sovrreigntv' he word p0t" defined by webster IL 70
"orn scheme Of mischief aSain another OF ssns gov
eminent or ~ those who % Sdan1 I Il to io. he s"y .tcns
taisgem or plan of complicated nAture or consisting OF
many parts, adopted to the m iot % p p
usually mscheyous one ot may pe ioiLe' pya s.ns
person by numbers. In the latter case coHpisoy
sb hnmbsT. But wo are told the remainder Of the
sentence this word rom It's oheT"isc obvious
PROPOSITION 4. not founded In and clnnoi be mainansd
Besides tiis would be perersion Of ,he sentence. ,
Ro.is Rss SasSi sSrrne fp ~ rs sia the
doctrine Of State Sovereignty but tue Reb doctrine o she
Rhf doctrine q state soYeTegry tt time Of this
publication, the doctrine Of armed RIoci2n; u was
nj. history OF which the Count win take Judicial no Ice
Words uttered to cay nothing Of written or printed Jooq
ne, co,lrned to be In aid" OF hi. doctrine not
unireqlenty Waited with incarceration without the aid oi
II there we're any doubt tho defendants meaning In
charging the plaintiff with plotting in aid Of the Rebel doc
very same sentence fo he tells thst the reeet efforts
which been made by traitors at home aud oei abroad
were male to maintain the Rebel doctrine OF state soyef
sgniy the subverion Of the .uitJ Of the hspu9e
snd the suPreme 'oyeIei.n'y Of ne ATe,e,n ps0i's
beIon and evil war Unle,. the learned counsel who
10 reply tan distinguish between "a plotting in aid
or spd nn efsr TO NATHAN" ths Rebel docno, , client
unnstakaby declared In this same sentence, th by ehas
nE the plaintiff with plotting m aid Of the Rebel doctrine o.
Saie Soyeei.ny be chaiee him with he crime q
participating IN the recent effort. Of traitors s hone aud
foes abroad rsnAn the Rebel doctrine Of State soyf
eighty or H. subyerion Of tn. unity Of tho Republic and the
,pen. sovereignty Of the American people which recent
nere nothing other than treason aud armed rebellion
against tho Government of this county, The highest crime
R, bs,s word. ehsrgns upon the plaintiff the com ui.
high lie IIl.Lt INDICTED and
J bels up6n the most iusrous q those who shared IN
sying the foundation Of Government Duane L'ngston
Ne ,bsiI be tgd As on former occasion th,t Il ia the
book under review by tho defendant that CONTAINS the b'
which defendant oldng uP 70 inamy and pubic exc
Grafton! I.,nch argument ht of uerance in court OF
ss,iesi as sifhe crime u b.ns the dead possible
u nannats thing A. tLs hodus Of bo9k up % In
ndesis s author nsy be mistake % bis
meaning be concludes this title 70 his pamphlet via, Tie
down the American ns shoot him on the SPOT ssn.s IN,
to haul down Addressed not merely 10 feope "isath,
to the highest pitch Of eKcuent for the maintenance o. hat
flag armed not altogether unaccustomei . tLe de
priyng wife Of her husband aId children Of hti niheI
with bu, little Difference to the established form, Of law
Bot we shall BE- agln reminded that s TIE book that
meaning submit ds bland i Chri.'i'n rhetoric weud have
National hss shoo, down rhaer-r book he hare sro
on the spot
nine paf from the defendants amT hch counted
upon the complaint. These pssse' proceed 10 climax,
does merit syllable from my ips; snd were not sup.
ported with peten'iop moro hung the persons involved
have been disposed Of by your Honor without sT,ument
fryoouf.
Ey1rts Choate for defendants }. T. Williams =. D.
Andrews for painth'
CtEcuGr-OcT i8.-Before Justice BAIcox
THE LAW or CONTRACTS FOR LOBBY SERVICES.
Chsrle, b. ~ HarTis sgt David Tilion and Others.
This case, which was noticed yesterday, and
which ia % note for s2eo was 'gmmsd op BY sSGG's
| "a 1.ty. lf" contradiction ia tle
S.rs 90 naked ts., he Iht. theory Gel FeeI
received originally wa, at time. pe.onaied by
| =, ,fh,rU.an was perhaps, the least improbable.
The Cont In t charge said In subsi.nce that appeared
nom tie evidence that was given by I,op End vnins of
tra rom an Of the Goyeinnent for the delivery TO
Of 200 5 70 T. M Gy ,l or lsa cTso
i, indor.ed by him. Tho plaintiff claims he purchased
from him for $500 due from Lay to hn.e within sIoa,
10 DAYS ae the made and be, since continued 10
60 and the note was valid In its inception ard
dd not then compromise respecting IT, ss claimed by the de-
Was the note given good and valid consideTslonf
not the defendants entitled 10 verdict ,
inc eonsct FOR him Of the United Government IA
Officers and comqensson for his service, 80 may Dc
aTeed on betwe, him aud ~, employer provided his
,r, toward his en- ploysr and the Government be free from
fraud and not against recognized principle oI piDlc policy
III were sgain public policy Woud be- void, A. In the
e Of contract TO obtain the passage Of net by what
called lobbying aud other cas-, which might be ,ngse,ed
The note in su Il. therioro vd unless the evidence
srrsnts the concluson that Ialy Freeman induced
the defendants, IIton or Nming 70 employ theni TO
obtain the contract for the sale and delivery OF horses
10 tho Government BY pretending that such contracts
were given through fsvotsm through tue influence
Of parculur PERSONS and that they tay ard ffecmcn
were such persons ia which i not valid, uud the de
fndans win be entitled 70 verdict il is not permitted that
Officers OF the Govcmneut should give out is contracts
such grounds. Every citizen complying with the conditions
| should stand equally IN procuring them.
The Court then discussed the question of whether there
had been oompronss Ia March 1854 saying that the evil
deuce was remarkably contradictory aud be Compelled
10 the that this point there had been Intentional
nriury on one eide or the other. lie should this
auction of TACT the Jury. compromise for $500 when
! lie matter IN dispute would have been valid
/ H.. efsdt Ia la IA seale