The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-12-20
SUPERIOR couaT-Telsl Iesn-paST 2.

The Libel Suit AgaIns, the Sunday Mercury
Evidence for the Defence--No Verdict Hen-
dercd by the Jury.
Before Judge 1oncli
Mar Wdreiz-k rs William Cn,ltioea a al.-The hear.
ing OF this case, which commenced Tuesday, was
resumed yesterday morning the sitting Of the
The counsel The defence continued his by
examining the plaintiff, asfollows:-
Tue rrAnriYr RECALLED, REcRcss- KxAmNEn
The season commenced with is05er0 Ddtlr, and
thiok Riooic.to was performed; do not know that u
performed after the publication OF these articles;
Tsapia,o was not performed that season: take my
company 10 other cities; give about i've months
performance in New York and two months elsewhere;
about third OF the second tier occupied by stock
holders, who invited whom they pleased; have
control any ,hai comes in 70 long they
aud sometimes in tho orchestra no one was allowed
to give orders excepting myseh and the treasur or:
gave tho principal orders myself we never took the
Of those who bought tickets and ses.s
very few free Admissions were gwen; tho greatest num-
Der OF complimentary tickets that ever issued TO the
press IN tho OF 1858 forty nifty; don't
think Issued or.7 dozen and half besides those
any one night .g tna @ TAKE me
aud Quavcrs or The Revelations Of an Opera Manager
but do not undertake 10 thai It contains nothing
The counsel for defence offered prove that 10 that
book plaintiff boosted OF his criticisms on theatres, and
threw down a challenge TO the press both Of Germany
and America TO rcialiale upon him.
The Court excluded the testimony.
witnessTbo free tickets given 10 the daily and
secular press they not transferable, but II that
took place IL abuse; pevor gave orders 70 stop
any at the door with press ticket; II had should
Counsel for defence then offered in evidence .
brco containing the opera Of Riool,, for tho purpose
Of proving that the opera was such a. no modest lady
The Court excluded the testimony, when counsel for
defence wished TO amend his answer BY inserting the
words "thst tho performance Of the opera Of Rgols,
vas such an exhibition AS no modest lady would hear
without busning."
This was opposed BY counsel for the plaintiff on The
ground thai ignorance Of Law could not be pleaded
'surprsc.n Ho wished TO know whether u meant the
opera or tho performance Of the opera Evidence
wltness-The opera Of R,ooltto is founded on tho
Le Roi samus Of Victor Hugo played in this country and
nothing immoral in the whole piece; II has been played
In every capital In the world; In the plot the Duke Of
his daughter have that in this country there Is
love In tho plot that IL acted upon the stage 20
certain extent here were a,inees during the season OF
1868 at the Academy OF Music.
Redirect cxaninatlon--I mean to say by "a love
scene 10 certain extent that never saw an opera
without love scene In ~; ladies without gentlemen
were not admitted TO the penormancss opera coaks
worn OF all colors cannot swear when Rigoieto
performed tho stockholders are usually the bsst names
Of New York have played the opera OF R,ooieso for
ak years, and have heard no complaint; think that
there nothing indecent in the play Of R0oeo have
seen played in Italy France Germany and here there
are no impure words In the version.
rR JcrsrH cosonE RECALLED AND cRoss.ExAxrSxR
In brooklyn; I attended % the advertising cxcla.
svely, and have done 80 for years; ] was some
times 10 the ticket ONCE during the sale OF tickets In The
season of 1868; sold any tickets; witnessed
the performance OF Rigoye,fo many tines think Miss
Kellogg was the soprano that season; I think that
Madame sulxcr vas the conirzto.
TESTIMONY DEFENDANT.
Mr. Horace p whitney, witness for defence, called
and sworn
am one Of tho defendants in this suit; remember
meeting Mr.. Gesche in Brooklyn; cannot be positive
about the date ~ Ia winter month; the
tion was opened by me; saw Mr. Gosche and asked
HIM the business OF the opera good and he said u
was talked about the suit, and said thought ~ wgs
no libel; he thought different and nsanced the suit
Of Fry against Bennett that the sum and substance
Of our conversation; there nothing said about adj
vertsng a that conversation the subject not
toned never had conversation with Mr. Gosche
SINCE that time In BROOKLYN did before that never
had any conversation about advertising, a. testified
~ Mr. Gcsche yesterday; ! do NOD know Mr..
hare,zek, and never had any conversation with him on
any subject whatever proof slips Of the advertisements
wore sent us; think they set up In the HERALD
ecs; they generally omitted by us for i've or SIX
wesks before the publication OF those articles, for the
reason thu columns crowded slips we're left at
the ofce which voluntarily lcft out OF the paper;
have teelng OF enmty against the plaintiff in this
snt did not write other Of those articles free tickes
we're nv until the publication Of those articles; ]
Dsksd that be sent simply TO the Sunday Mercury
Instead Of being addressed 10 person. because vs
pftsn wished 70 send different persons tickets
being sent 10 ne vi OF the tmc since 1890 have not
poiced advertise. eenus from Mr. nsrstsek any
90 a NJ Ioa.h \ a. - rcc~~ ,n.s \