New-York tribune., 1867-08-27
SUPREME COURT-CnABgRs.- Before Mr. Justice
BARNARD.
THE LAW OF LIBEL--THE RIGHTS OF NEWSPA-
PERSONALITIES OF REBELLION.

IIE LAW OF LIBII--IHE RIGHTS OI NtNoIA-
PERs--PENALTIEs OF REBELLION
This was an action for libel the gist Of which
% @ S nS n. tbs a h ,sn Sa
also OF Georgia and North Carolina scale beyond tho
modest maeinngs OF ordinary villains" This purpOrted
TO DO report Of the proceedings motion to discharge
from arrest, and the afdavs used that motion did
the means in bis hands as Rebel CommssSry Sor hi
ownpryae benefit The plaintiff brought suit laying hi3
damages at s2OO0)O The defendant answered. justing
the alleged libel motion Is now made 10 dismiss tho
eonpalnt and perpetual stay OF proceedings, on the
This is action for an alleged libel concerning the
conduct OK the plaintiff as a conmissary Ia tho Rebel
army Criminal has claim upon the courts Ol the
sonTy TO occupy their time, or employ their processes
r % cnS o. his relations with hls accompces
In & &ctlinei III pardoned murderer should come into
court ana complaining that his acc0mpce In the murder
had received more than his share of punder should
the excess he would be secuted II suit
Drought IOr such purpose and In referring to t news.
paper were 10 denoce the parties shameless rObbers
neither OF tlem ceud sustain action against the editor
for libel lie would not bo permitted ia that way by in.
obtain directly IN suit against his fellow criminal What
is true ia this respect OF murderer true OF other
criminals. Not one OF them can maintain action which
requires him 20 alege his tefpitude Tho reasona
against are twofod One tina. rule OF law which, m
different forms is expressed In tho two maXIms i
edusd noa otur aciio and otLegaas tapitudnsDl
no" est dudieldas," Eere the plaintiff In stating his
has TO state his own crminaty The other reason
is that 1t would bo indecent thing 70 Oge the courts
TO- between criminals and Determine thcsr shares
OF the common spOils COmmissary at Abdorson Vile
were To sue another Commssary account OF proGs
missed as sn "a indsny 70 the Court no Il Is fU%sr e rs a
that an aC0n for an account and aymept OF the profits
OF illegal transaction, cannot no sustained, whatever
amount of unfair dealing may bo alleged. And Il IL
whin tile reasons of the sBe rule that an action for
bOl Cannot be sustained by Of the participants the
Transaction whenever he IL obliged 10 show hs pafticpa
tOn, In order TO sustain HIS action. 80
sudge Barnard ruled that IN 50 far as the swhding the
Rebel Government concerned, action would not
he as ~ provided Tor charge OF s'gindns nonentity
BIZ Harris for the plaintiff in reply, argued that The
rule contended for did not apply The libel charged the
%slnIin % with swindng citizens, not ~ Rebel for q
Rebel was not necessarily sginder. but ag man, aud
with swindng citizens not necessarily Rebels that there
was no proof before the Court that the pilnlh
Rnbel that the rule only applied when both parties
tue SUIT were patners IN the Illegal transaction, ana oven
the transaction.
The Court granted the motion rendering tho following
opimOp:
"The defendant In this action could either have de-
INJURED a. the complaint the ground that 10 did moi
Stale cause " action. Had they donc 20 IL probable