New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-07-25
A STRONG LIBEL SUIT.

bribery Hereupon, the Senator sued the Edi-
tor for libel, employing the sou of his brother
Senator from Brooklyn as Attorney. The COM
plant in the case is as follows
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF KSGs-Demas Strong
plaintiff ag;. George &. Bennett. defendant.
Demas Strong plaintiff in this action complaining OF
George G. Bennett. defendant therein says;
Frs That on the llth day OF May thousand eight
hundred and sixty five the said defendant beng The
publisher and proprietor OF certain daily wspaper
Unfinished and circulated In the city OF Brooklyn, ana
called Tie Brooklyn Daily Times did malicously pub.
sh in said newspaper concerning this plaintiff ard
caused 10 he circulated in said city, certain article
containing the following false detamatory and ioelos
natter - don't know that Senator Strong was paid
ten or twenty thousand dollars. but l do know thht
such sums ready to be paid; and furthermore,
know that Senator who would try 70 bride member
Of ,seInby and who "a an individual has 6ribed
bers Of L,gisiae would not be very tenderhearied
on this sulecaud Demas Strong Is that man. let hin
contradict If he dare and vii. produce the facts
ScoEd: That by Of said publication the SAID
pnintiff has sustained great damage end injury
lie therefore prays Judgment against the said defend
ant the of Ten thousand Dollars together with
his costs OF this action
HENRY C.. MURPHY. jr..
Attorney for Plaintiff.
To this complaint, the Editor responds 'aS
follows:
SUPREME CouRr, COUNTY OF KNos-Demas Strong agt.
George Z. Bennett.
The defendant answers the complaint
First; That the alleged belons matter set forth IN
the complaint IL trae.
Second And as further justification Of the truth Of
said alleged iDeous matter this defcndent says that
dnrpg the session Of the legislature OF the state OF
New York. In the Winter aud Spring Of soJ. the plain
nj Demns str Jng Was Senator Of Said State. duly
elected and qualified and such Senator was nem'
Der Of said Legislature and was pr sent at Its sessions
and took part its proceedings and that as SAID sen
ator end as member Of said Legislature the plaintiff,
Denas Strong was paid and did receive. large sum
If money To- influence his vo.e and action as said mem
Der. bill then pending before said Legislature, ana
which bill was introduced into said Legslitu for
and on behalf OF the New York Central Railroad Com
pany.
of said alleged belous matter this defendant
says that one member OF the Assembly
and the Legislature Aforesaid duly elected and quail
fed and acted such aud took part in ts proceedings
and that the plaintiff, Demns Strong, offered to ana
pfOmlaed said - member VI Assembly as af0re
said II large sum of money. tow.t the sum OF $1,000
for his Senator Oft United States provided
n vacancy IN that office should occur and an election
therefor should be- lad By saiA legislature and that
thereby tie plaintiff. Demas Soong. tried TO bride
member OF Assembly.
sirl. Aud in further justification OF the truth Of the
alleged hbeous matter the defendant that while
the plaintiff Senator ana Member OF the Legisla-
ture last aforesaid 10 the support and vote OF
one -, then member Of the Assembly and Leg
isatuTe aforesaid. duly elected and qualified and act
ing such tor bills before the Legislature. aforesaid
the names and nature Of which are now unknown TO
defendant promised
him the appointment 10 office of pccuniary profit and
cnoluuent To wit that of Inspector Of petroleum an
Office created under and by the charter OF the city OF
BroOk.yn; and that the said Demas Strong then and
thereby tried to influence and brlbe member OF the
Assembly.
Ssrs.n. And as a further Justification Of the truth Of
the said alleged lbeous matter this defendant says
that the plaintiff Dcmas Strong has for been no
torously engaged in the business o corruptng egisls
tor and Of being himself corrupted legislator and
thai by thereof he is end for long time has
been u person OF bad name, fam. and reputation.
III. Aud the defendant for q further defense IN mti
CATION OF any damages claimed In this action, saws
FrS-Tbat during the session OF the Legislature OF
the State of New-York for the year ro3 he had
respondent AT Albany for said paper The Brooklyn Daily
TsDes; that said correspondent vas careful and dis
erect person. and In whom this defendant was JUS
titled in repoSing confluence and trust: aud tnat the
alleged libeous matter set forth In the complaint was
contained in OF series OF letters received by this
defendant from said correspondent ana written by him
for -aid paper that said alleged libelous matter was
publicly and notor!ously discussed. ana talked about
and spoken Of at said city OF Albuuy and that any dis
aud prudent person aud is justified in beiey
Ing and publishing the same, and that said corresponds
ent and this defendant both believed said matter 10 DC
true.
Seoond That while the plaintiff, Demas Strong. was
Senator and Member of the Legislature Tor 80" US
Aforesaid, bill was pending before the Senate the oD
ect of which To increase the fare OF way
the New York Central Railroad; that taid OH Was
unpopular and was opposed by the poitea lrehus VI
the plaintiff. and b, the plaintiff Denas n'.oJ '', -,
self who openly ayowed his hostility ana opposition 10
said bill and that vet when said bill came up ior hnu
passage In the Senate the piahll'' pcln,s S.iins
voted for tie same to the establishment Oh hs iriehus
and potical co.workers: that money was iceiy uscu
to promoto tho massage OF said BILL and that was motto
rionsly and generally believed In said city oil Albany
that the plaintiffs Demas strongsl vote Tor soiu Dii
was bon I'M and paid for and that Demas STRONG as
Sonator and Legislator bribcd and corrupted that
!, ,yas well Understood that said bill was passed by
bribery and corruption and that it was fair Inference
that the plaintiff Demas Strong w0ud NOT DO very
tender hearted on this subject.
mi, That while the plaintiff Senator and
member of the Legislature for leo5 memorial was IN
troduced into the Legislature In support OF OH 10 IN
crease the fare OF passengers ON tne h'
roods and that the said plaintiff Demas Strong claimed
and demanded from the agents and managers oi SAID
railroads large sain of money to wits S2jO to insure
the passage of said bill and that the said paiuin was
ready and willing 10 give his support ior s,ia pm or
o of which was and is consistent with the vote
and action Of corrupt ana cosruptlhs hehoer Vi 'ho
Legislature. 80 -. =,
Fo,ytb, That while the plaintiff was member OF tho
Legislature aforesaid in 1860 two several DIS creating
,rcreosing Railroad grants and franchises within the
CITY of New. York were introduced aud pending IN tus
said Legislature, known as Inc Cross Town anu
broadway Railroads" and that the said paihtn, De-
mas strong demanded OF the agents ana managers
thereof n large sum OF money, 10 WIZ s'0o0 lux "'
support and vote for tho same
Fsn,t. And as further Just noation OF the truth OF
arid alleged hbelous natter this defendant says tnat
ono - was a member OF the Assembly ana OF the
~ the State Of New York duly e.scted and
ouelded for the yosr 1903 and that the plaintiff Demos
strong did pay and deliver or cause 10 DC PAID and
tho sum Of $500 to influence his action against bil
then pending ia said tho OBJECT Oh when o'
was tho construction Of a sewer through hentavenue
In tho City Of Brooklyn, and that tho planin Demas
Strong brbcd and has bribed member OF the esisa'
ture. -, A., =.
Ftih, And as further Justification Of the truth Of
said alleged .Ibe9ps matter this DEFENDANT says 'aSt