The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-05-23
Action Against tho Sun Newspaper for
Alleged Libel.
fLEAS-TNIAl
Before Judge Bras

Before Judge Brady.
Hugh kinHick Noses & Bedch-This action was
hseught against the proprietor of the sun the publ
eation OF the following
TsE Twrsrr.u WARD Tmrvrs.-yes,erd.y sergsan,
ssd person whose name is given as Johnson both OF
Sho% wss, Identified a. thieves who for month have
aitsed the prisoners In default Of $4,000 bail.
The plaintiff laid his damages at 5000 The publ.
sasion admitted by the defendant but excused On
NE trial the plaintiff himself was placed on the stand
end testified to the facts and TO his damages On the
sFosrexamnaon II appeared that he had been arrested
- the time OF the report and held bail but did not
know what for no had not TO hs knowledge been
Ssd on that charge unless was while he was in Ire
land no had been there since the suit commenced had
received any offers OF reiracton from the paper
q Offer To pay his legal expenses did not know when
ne suit was commenced; he never had any interviews
With Mr. Reach either OF them at the Sun building;
As had some talk with Mr. Mshan at tho engine house
n. Mcguire was called to testify to his character
1s had formerly employed him N q barkeeper and his
character for honesty and industry was good the plain
~ connected with Engine No IL; he used to bunk
oAsrs; Spencer Of his associates; there was
ssshsr rough set hung about the corner OF Thirty.
sssd hang there; he might or again he might
~ have heard that tho gang around there were gang
Patrick Murphy testified that plaintiffs character was
eIcsent; he had seen him may be twenty times In his
oaloon; he did not know how many hours he attended
kssw he belonged 70 Engine Company No IL; perhaps
osms people said that company was : hard ose but he
Cd not know H.
Pstsr Lcsmy and Dennis Harvey testified n the plain
o6s good character and examination. TO much
shs same facts A. others Tho plaintiff then rested his
60
n. Lord, on behalf Of the defendant, opened the
60. He claimed that should be brought into
00ut for libel unless the plaintiffs character clear
~ case never would have been brought but for the de-
oss Of some OF the Twenty nrst ward gang TO punish
- n for Its course In trying IN break up their prar
eic Some Of that gang had been arrested before that
x0Y larceny Just before that Article Oubl ehed
O0or Policy had tried 10 OF these men and
hAd been Get upon and heated by the gang Minnck
I'D another were then arrested for the assault
I'D battery and brought up before the police
3nsttee. The reporter who was present bad made
SsAncai error. He had called him q thief instead
1swn his report al two o'clock In the morning
vhsu neither Of the Mcsrs Beach was there and ID
Veas In withou either Of them knowing OF ~ So
eDoa n Mr. Joseph r. Beach discovered II, which was
~ The service Of a summons him about ten DAYS
Gher, he had offered publish any rrrsction 10
money and would take nothing loss than 500 The de-
S6ndants counsel then vent 10 the plaintiffs counsel
end repeated these offers and NJ the time Informed
him the suit against the wrong party. That suit
vas discontinued and Oh. present. suit brought THIS
was for merely nominal damages the mistake be
~ accidental and At any rate only technical
Nj Joseph r. Beach testified 10 his absence from the
0oce t the time the report arrived and 10 hs efforts to
oetls tho matter. He testified that Mlnnck did come
- his ONCE and talk with him about the matter, when
- made the oders stated BY his counsel
yudge Kelly then placed upon the stsnd, and test
- 70 the fact OF Minnck being brought before him
~. smth objected 10 oral testimony Of the charge
egniuss Mr. Mnnlch. there being record Of what was
ooae and during the discussion the Court adjourned
- morning ~ eleven o'clock