New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-01-11


prevailed allowing the jury To he Judges II he law m
civil as well "a criminal actions. in eases th'
gry found that 10 be- libel which was hbe anI wee
versa: The rule in this country va iyunded ~ PLAN
practical common sense. Wa. That IN iotrt should De
tcIulnr whether matter is hcnGs, where taro ~ it
Ftuid Of dOhl but in case oi doubt iAr question Wa
10 be left to tho Jury In other words. where MS q
PLAIN case Tie Judge s1l that lie srtics IL libel
Gus. ana The irry mast regard But where the
publication susceptible Of two cor truccns It must
he Lft 10 the jury TO determine nat was intended
And again il IL no duty If the inT where one con
tfucton Involves criminal dsi8 ia"rs imputation
and the other not to give II the mere eneni consue'
tuition. TIE re applies 10 I'M o. |" The ordinary
question 81 guilt or innocence.
The first charge IN the lbel was king more Doney
hy secret partnerships than any fifty slfpers jew or
Gentle. in the city Of NcN-l urk { llngu1tr was
not 30 clear that the Court could Il aas libclous
IL must ihcy fore be lct 20 lie 10 c0nHrue u.
They must say whether Mr. Weed OF 10 accuse The
plaintiff Of making money from IN government Az
honestly IN the way that sharptrE ',e their money.
The words are 70 he interpreted IN hEon rarance,
aud not av Any technical rule a law
\ libel IL \ maic.crs drianini . pnbu' 'iion oi
ancihc. calculated TO bJdbn ~ 10 3raee, contempt
ridiculc II does moi necessarily u 0vt charge "i
anv criinll obcnsp. hen lib, is uId b. the jury
the law PC uncs it TO be- false ihI arden OF proof 3
upon the defendant ~ show II @ hc q 2
His Honor then proceeded 10 stat the remainder o.
The lilry leaving " 10 tie jury t2ael rhine III regard
To Nil of the charges against the pli NJ whether ilg
were lf OuS or not Ntl th' siBf ithcepiloh W tAc
one in which The plaintiff was char win beng "a
member OF the committee 10 Hudt q clam with SIT
ting the claim and with conceal The iet tho me
vas largely interested N it. Iui clearly nbrons
IL untrue and he thought tacrc was entire failure OF
proof 10 JUSTIFY that portion; therH tie inry should
award dImefrs 1p,L IT,
m regard 10 the basis upon wh The claim was
mode up though in hr Ilorors orI d II WGs clearly
Illegal yet cie Wn, rot cc,asniti - imputation 81
dishonesty making IL up. " af for tho jury io
ssy whether there y svudir 10 j. fnot or whchor
dishonesty Eas 10 he imputed to tr alHfh. The cats
was bond J.; The law 70 give iad hy iI The los :"
pr, rf. q frt nothing mlfe. CON for pililiiH ~
nav cod one road 10 ascertain lar0gte; Counsel
fuI dcicudaut another, Mr. Cpd unoi her ana ~
pcrvlsur l!uut still an0-hcF. J M ipicat"n oi inc
,uie Of gu,a.ea was riwgvs very lpult one aud had
Pc plevra rf.cel mind. j'.gEcp, rci as any otrr
question The dim ives made By taking thc
gun. Iu tiC pIOre:S VI manufacture vi oeuhc'lh- i'
cost uf camp.et,ug tacin from tao ottlnAe1t W't'
That oi cuuis embraced tue Ioydiy Oh - -" anu pr
that Wow. y tic ease hsd been pros lri Tor Icco't
~ The Corporation His Homo wo, b. Obliged sitting
~ iujer ~ rule TINT a." G lbs va Urnlid The ny
nity was not due until the CUES were on1c"d and nr
lvpfcd and therefore the 52ltUD vi ID would IN Lat
even: have been due u o. pttcltee could BE- en-
bTp,cd In the claim against lie G. pO,aii1B IL uG'
prGrcd that Supervisor B,Hnt d. rf adopt ne
theory Of abe pairtiH in allow he olsim hnt
one that VAS sjiil worse w hav irriycd ~ TIE
fact that q orjny 'crdrd Tie m rnt 81 ihe claim,
De was satisfied Hat II was just tou org it IL showed
that lIy9nu not alv Ly- tHe AZ Judges 1I law
But athUuyu tie TLc 81 damages "a Niri TIE tihul
AS made up and adopted was atoi 10 did not oi.oW
that tie plaintiff dishonest. 7 libel must he lu'
tined a. broadly ~ t wos made u literally IN tto
sense ia winch j. was charged IT, Jury nuHt CONSIDER
tie o., Id cr,e, aud de,rrI.le pheta tie pL.n.h did
fl.c.! AID iIs4tu,-ully mako W. III cham.
IN regard 10 the SHe!.rshiy-il Nsriresh matter
and tie ,Aoddy H nkc,s 1t was til ri Ia tie ilTy 90
dcteiluc What Nls r,lut md 20 TIER hhel war li'
,nled end II SO the jug wsfo toF n view II TIE cI'
duce whether the charges had be- justified.
j. .egnrd 70 NJ. Girle'a s'lm iml here wa n
large saIH4!c IN ile clll T.. l." = s ao proof tba.
AT Gibp, did as 90. iioUgh uur utilization, would
b. u NIT rlion ~ ihr damages. mhD had rrai g.
prtlsf rgnor ani then justify by proving that there
wa- such rumDr.
lholaw allowed primitive detilc"s ~ ort,f e. mHh'
An e1aup.e aud tu deter otIs Ivu thc commission n
like ulirnsr, Where the de!rrdnui sought - Justly
and ni.,d 30 Was an agggasa'iul O. the hDc' WIN the
qualification That circumstance might L. u'sc"ftTed '
nit glticu.
Il.s Honor said Lad allowed material evidence O.
come iu u a eases co. doIht iof ic purpo'' %; hnluc
. nee and fu INTERPOLATION. vuich wa Du' To 10
plaintiff as vel o." Cont H. hoped thc lliy luI'
have no otter motive titan o. II" equal and exact trsl'
between The parties nnd th71 they UoulI DuE" o.
verdict tl7' vtril s1iisy ;rusrlyes tlt LEY l1g
done their t'y. lie fcf bound 20 fcrp them ut a'
ght unless t,y ooId lgiec nuntr and b. ,.icd nat
supper would be prov drd for tacn at ooo,. " u"l
had bot agreed 20 that boar.
The Court then adhnricd III tomorrow, n u
O'Clock, the jury 90 lfug ~ sealed NeIdirt-