, 1865-11-30

nQueSn0n OF LAW, NOT
Of Fact--An Arbl-
hstion--Diror.
ces Prayed
For.
A muLTtTUDR OF NEW SUITS.
Giccft COURT or THE ukrrxn srArss-Hon.
1MoWes D7t0'a7oad, Jud1t.-The Dr1ied S,ztes N.
Sohn u 1irum1Man Indictment Tor rubbing tha q.
.. uaL The indictment chargcs that the prisoner
n Aafeh last. sole NAL bag from car Of the c.,
=. Y i. E, near oa]esbnrS. II sppesr. that de-
1eodant got npou The tEatn, md while The mail
agent was absent, kicked the bag from tho mail
ear subsequently. be got on, took possessiou OF
etroytng By f.e the remaining contents o{ he bar.
Among The Ta]uahles tAken Wis dra{t 10 fayo- 5f
hoWen bt6thcrs Of this city, which be presented
OF Of 1ad wsiea eaSsed ~ b; sa ples
greas1Dg. The defence l. 1mbeclhty md ipsaultT.
Ntfy Boqf u. he Chicago GUY Hallway Com.
Commenced With damages is,a a' s,o,oo ~ IL az
lesed that In Stripping IRON chr upon The Inc Of
TAG ., ne company at The corner Of State and
Aandolph gf1netf, through The e1relcasnets OF the
driver OF conductor the car ras started, and abs
vas % mtow1 to % .he gsound. breaking her high
Storey and A1aulas Worden. The trial ol this Il.
bel entt was continued Yesterday # being the third
day q IT, pendeney. The question npon tbe I'd
Wilson, made to resist the pctition of Eva T. Nc
ss sFuea oesaR'sd apa .a os,o H. AsMaay stsa H.
nlaintias counsel oa The e5oand thai hls esiae1ee
saa s noi pe reGel'ed to establish privilege because
hn posaby ss et!S ds 9 n2s 5f M .e IT, +
sacte establish privilege in the ustfre Of the
controversy. y Is only the Who,e rrco1 ia. ca
fahe9 M isss = seatsa sI. p;t
Sefzy be!aren ~. Ssbona'd r. ' pa!e5seee s q
who occupied tie premises, althongh thai
s'Tse1 e e a. Hss ns ia sacn sna 9ss + -,
Inc reason why proceedings in Court may Be- pnb-
!ishcd IL because they are between pafties, cseh
IL ~ eSRf s9 t. ead r TIE g
agatntt htm. The reason e p1rf< statements are
re;ected Is because t l. statement Of one side,
an answer; is not present To lu, in Els statrmegt
u not interested to be there That u jpsf tbe 0srt
IN thts essc- M1. Mcdonald, the owner of he
etition d chaoce hat Highs hayar as o{,aeS & Ss5
foreclosure and khe having bought the ce11ihcate
that she has right to VIII Of posscss'oo gsow7nc
sce 20 a. IS Higgins il concerned be has no Inter
est In It tSerrfotr, for The reason II Ia erpuk it
carnot be int t-odneed. Thst il caDnot Be iotro.
pe1ly receivable n1der the pleas in the ease nor
under the geuera LINE, becauke If that were alopr
pleaded It ehould be 1cjectcd; under tnsii6ea.
;nsaeson. .o z I'll taa'G ~ Gaaes ss
can ees. By az examination q This Libel, Is not
n'ts that FIR :; !. Of rse,d Of Judicial ocdns
The Questions involved WIRE u1gres. hy Nj. swett
and ~. ten Aruan for plaintiff. and b Mr.. Sloz7s
The Conr1 Jec.aet a, forous
Two Questions hase been dtecnssed In The Lengthy
and very ahle discussion to which hayp listened.
pSs psn% atS re e g, "h ct s
stili hsse noF, 10 he passed upon bJ the Court,
Bath perhaps are important questions tor the par
both fides mn opportunities 70 discrss them nj snd I'd
present. thelt views. The trst question though
i bag tsSen 1nnra "ihes 1anse il discussion, is
Tic fsets Which ars ssted he o eass sse q
ter,ncd by the Court o. by the jury. 9hat IL tht r
question. The next question Il the question
Fehnt malice Upon The nr<t question, whether Il
ts the province nl The Court q jury to ps.s npon
thts question We must consider Il Whist attitude
prescribed 70 the Court. l bare no doubt that
where II te question Of couaict ot tsc&a OF where
ttsa Question depending npou the testimony Of
question to 20 10 The 3uzy whether the 1acta
or beng tnn md iar s1atemeDt 81 he se.s u she
81 sst % sqss ss o1 & yaaa nd
be 50 ~ eserI sse soppote where It ts question
e,tesr Of 6' saaa'c. .. NhsFs ot.l
III ihe fse.s s1e ii rpon Tie rsea IL s iss ii ii
ptace The libel is upd1 the record. In
,as s,,e s1 Of pass al ana DC h r.
rule 10 be we'll thai in resa5d 10 all To-
stiuIaents u writing their construction Is natter
psss to ihe r:sy wbe,her decd Is deeas Il nasy ny
| past to the }usT deed has been properly signed
With ne party intending 70 Esa Il, has actually
q sst rasbes e. go / e. 81 @
not deed 50 IN case Of libel the Court 1asses
upon the qneation whether II il hhel
patees npon the question whether the words ate
ac1ttnRble or not In Ill these csscs whcrs it II
a question depending Upon The construction Of
in tbs case, Ii the atidasits which sre stteopssd
10 be introduced have been already eet out in the
second ples 70 the plaintiffs dec'aza1ion; ercsy
10 be introduced before the jury. has been already
before the court In anothef to!m. The qutsuon
the DE- Sse ~ nnsd ss1 ;hsn8
error % the ps;s orths coa1 Il passing s apoa
erTor N lie Supreme coan when he sse eos: ;,ss
other. Nov i Is precisely this question, ard 10
@ mase se4sst eon I'd spon % ~
destss g. aas*saos . b. d4sAssetnsd - whethes
ssss a..aSt ate Nne h'A!Snsui OF tae 1ae1& N
9y way of Isist3eec- lhen decided thsi
tneF Tsse not. tos ~ tvo reasons: Ia tbs
on md I 81 Us tSs aas,tses M
besond The reach of p1istieee. While coneedt
ct ~ statement Of Tsat tEsnsps, n eon
1N1hsssh = Ists .se*d 1nd 91a.
ss Gspf P;ssa Sss + Rs &c ess
l.ssip pna h,nh a1so. "sS aI0 ,e ~ sa1seqHen
papcs. wese matters Of pr!ri1ese, End ncr'
ss+,,1 ~. n.,nsos n pe'e s,1,. ~. aoe pIpose ~
i being = t1Shnal punltca1on) yef. L a psrt1
eaooesr 70 70 oefona thoeS amts, and instead &
Sonss ~ nHhi. n nhae tSna ~ Sol hes, a. g IT, H.
be goes o1sside Of the range q privilege. Nov,
EEL. 81 ~ IT,, e q tdis aos a..
9nes'ton lot tne eoh,5 ttalnk, mn Mhne n cslt1ii
efsf 81 c.ses, 70 wh'eo nass M!noeo, II 0ooid p
& ~ ~ 'y e. eo 10 :, tne S, aaa onGat
ot tecutd; mater now before II court
mauef fesunR on "fAlen h1uu1snta
Ine CONT - y 70 nase o.. On these e.. writer
Ihe question o. ts1Hiese ~ IN IN n9most!ess r.
stanees 9uefanm o. az hh 70 pe ued leland sna deesdst
and p.esda TIT certain connmunicstion M. priv
tteged cctnunn1satfon 70 hfm must decide tha1
question. ena ooeH not 70 70 ne 1n'y. 20 U hi:
case. Wncsc tne ~nole 9h1oc appears before me OK
the sseorG. Inn 70 paes npon ne question, auc
% srof he hss eiesr right 10 !sks sasan,sse oiit
ln the care at har, trpposlnc did aow this terti
nony to 80 70 the }usy. Whist Honld be the effect o.
~ should hare 10 give psccate1y the fnstuctinI
glreu in the cate. / ehonld have to say tha
tbin wes not privileged article Counse
ftfens position bcforr me Il this wns otai p.ooi
That seeEs 10 me dfsposes OF the sIrst question
There haSe been rome collateral queat3ous discus
svd which II I. not necessary for me 70 pass upon
Perhaps, however, may say, In rasstug, that I dt
not regard this a. an e P157t proceeding. II wns
suit 1n court; suit IN which Jpdge Higgins VII
complainant and certain parhcs dcfenda1ts, au1
tbere sas no cbange Of ps.ties even at the t1m,
when The petition was filed IN the case for writ o
possession. The parties in that case were the Kame
ard therefore Ii cannot be chilled in any eetse al