New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-28

taken 70 set up the plea several deense 70 the two
~ action contained the third and fourth counts in tho
declaration This is against the inst principles OF special
pleading Besides no one OF The deense se forth IN me pea
ou Justify the publication of the libel as charged IN me two
counts Each plea must contain one good defense to all that
processes to answer In teiS case inc pea SSes 70 %
set forth accompshes this Again the libel set forth in the
n and dishonest An Che deense except one mp in this
plea short OF this and only impute the crmnity TO ms
The exception il the delense-ha tho plaintiff sfed his
Post Office books TO deiraud the Government But this admit
ting Il to be true constituted defense TO the libel complained
of In the two counts which the plea processes TO answer
The same remark Is TO the defense relied on namely
the coercion Of his clerks TO subscribe 70 and support ms news
An the above Ppy to this plea as defense to
the seventh and eighth counts
The remaining pleas down TO the forty first inclusive in
various forms up defense TO the third and seventh
embozement Of the public money While postmaster
Now we have seen the libel in the third count charges that
the plaintiff full blown coundrel and knave and not fit to
vert II 10 his own benefit contrary the act of Congress- and
that he would commit wifu and corrupt felony
The seventh count u the same 49,. -,
plea that the plaintiff had committed the ofense Of
bezzcment is answer 10 charge that ntrustea WIN
effect OF conclusion from the fact stated Of previous embeze
ment by the same Person-and hence Is oaa as pe@
peadeT OverlOoks the locus pnte TO the benent OF Whch
every person is entitled ,
Fbee copn as we have seen are founded part of
the libel which oharges that the plaintiff according 70 tho
inuendO while Postmaster by natural affinity gathering about
him and wlf and oorruPy employed them TO sGa
the public and that under the SoRo1Ss OF rue Oh e
Now The forty eoond poa in answer 10 this sets up suban
tally that the plaintiff Postmaster had the appointment OF
his clerks and other employees and that they In the course oil
their employment and business distracted letters from the
/ office broke them open and stole the contents
IL requires no argument show that this plea fails to answer
| the cause Of action stated in these counts "
The remarks are applicable to the forty hia pea-
'ng The foTtyoarth forthwith forysHth and foryseyenh
MA To
The forty eighth plea bad attempt to set up multi
tude of dcns in one plea Of action in the third
and seventh counts There are other objections Dnt the ABOVE
we have looked into the averments in the declaration
objected to and are satisfied the sufficient in sub
stance make the libel pcable TO the plaintiff Inc Whoe
Of the libel be read for this purpose which will remove oil
Judgment for the plaintiff all the dOmurrers to the pleas
WIN Before MIR Justice MULLN
| BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE-A CURIOUS DEFESsR'
Cornelia Virgins agt WIN A. Russell .-..,
in paper last Spring in which the plaintiff obtained yer
On the calling Of the Mr. Marsh OF counsel for defendant
contended the promise to and the breach were
the opening Of the The Court held however that the
plaintiff hSd the affirmative to show the circumstances OF The
defendant pccuninry and aggrayntng matter TO hE the
of damages and therefore the plaintiff had the night to
The plaintiff went on the stand and testified that the defend
ant had represented himself worth $4,000 that three
different DAYS had been Fixed for her marrage-Noy 1853 and
Jan and May 1852 she at great expense lover " 500
preparing for these occasions on feb ~ O ne tod her
SOmc
him. and il suited them they would locate there S1o nehi
saw the defendant the following October she then learned
from him that married the 9th OF February she
went 10 Troy on request Of Mr. Russell him. and had
the October interview with him she told him that ms SISTER
told that he married but she could not believe
until she heard from his own lips he offered her $50 pay
| her travelling expenses which she declined
To Mr. Marsh-I got the 81 500 from my industry made
in dressmaking in Jamaica BrooklyH and NewYork com
menoed at Is years Of age my own account also made
PRINCIPAL of lndys furnishing establishment had charge OF
It for the proprietOs went back after that for short time
or year that TO New York came back IN the
latter part Of 1856 and have stayed there ever s1 g
TO stay couple Of weeks when this promise was made was
Sing went 70 he hotel and lived at the hotel while
there letters Of the defendant OF July 10 1893 ana ohe
letters showing the of the correspondence b
him were Produced accompanied books and
called lady dear gr another letter Of JAY s audes to
these books and expresses fear that one OF the books written
by Lola MOntez which he has read contain matters
hardly proper the letter concludes with wsrn expressions OF
This closed the formal OF the plaintih
The counsel for the defendant stated that be fully and frankly
admitted the promise and that at the time Of making the prom
Use looked forward 70 bringing home 70 bless bis house woman
70 whom he could the Of his eight children and
with whom he trusted TO be happy and 20 share happiness bu
before consummatng the marriage be discovered that he had
been hasy the selection OF whom be found alone
Sing Sing lie had found that Miss Virgins had made com
plant under oath against another man for breach OF promise
accompanied by seduction lie hoped in proving this to avoid
the usual miserable details OF such cases and be had no doubt
that would be considered not only that he had sucet eR
but that it was his bognden duty TO keep bis h brood
Of children from contamination OF such woman The de-
ndan had defense Desiring natural 70 avoid
which he paid $50 and agreed pay her 80 on her surrender
ing the The money paid but the letters we're not
eneral Gushing was called and testified tina,
lie knew the plaintiff In June lJs he brought suit for her
he declined 20 say against whom There complaint
Drawn and signed BY tie plaintiff The Court ruled that Mr
client Marsh cOntended that though he could not AK or
communications made by the client 20 the counsel he
could ask for pursuance OF such commmun
cations The Court ruled that be could not inquire into the
complaint until 1t was shown TO have been published by
service
on oath the defendants attorney Richard Busted this
the answer put in the came TO The knowledge
Of the panti; settled by arrangement between
uiys the plaintiff the defendant In that suit the defend
ant paid $500 OF which paid 20 her sO and Tor
which she gave this receipt the complaint destroyed by
n thai the plaintiff seduced under breach Of
lac Of marriage the defendant and for seduction and
breach OF promise OF this complaint was signed ana
sworn 20 by the plaintiff the seduction had been con
tnuOu seduction running over the two or three years next
preceding the commencement OF the suit that suit was car
ed through between January and June 1853 have not since
had any professional relations with her at subsequent inter
view she told she had made favorable arrangement with
gentleman marriage showing letter with the name turned
down abe asked disclose this former suit told her
II was confidential should at subsequent interview
found IL VIM A Russell. she asked me had informed
him a. he had discovered the former suit subsequently, she
told she had made friendly arrangement with MIN about
his failure TO fulhl his promise ofmarriage.
To Bliss: The first Of these interviews have mentioned
was some months after the settementess than year she
boarding al the American House IN sing sing IL was
think during tho summer the last conversation have test
fed after September 1889 that was the last Interview
had with her can't tell whether year amer or more
she complained previous interview that Mr. Squires
had informed Mr. Russell Of the suit this was previous 70 sep
The Court then adjourned to today at l0A m
SUPERIOR CoURT-SPEcIAL TERH-Nov. H-Befors Jus
tice BARBOUR
MANAGES CLAIMED FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER