The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-11-14
SUPREME COuaT-spEclAL TERM.
Action for Libel Against the New York Times
ACCOMPLISHMENTS Cverruicd.
Before Judge Cicrke.

Action for Libel Against the New York Times
Newspnper-Drmnrrer Cverruicd.
Before Judge Ciorke.
Rostine Parker 70. Henry j. Raymond and GerCe
Jones.Plantiu Ia conductor on tho Now Jersey Raa-
road. and the defendants tho propricors OF tho
New York Times newspaper. Mr.. Parker sues Tor tho
recovery OF 500 damages for alleged libel pa6-
ished 10 that paper October 90 1885, and which
referring him, and states in his compliant
that the 18th of October 1885, one Theodore Dwight
OF Brooklyn, killed at tho New Jersey Railroad de-
pot Jersey City, BY his pwights) own negligence in
jumping from the train whle IL was In motion, Mr.
D~igh,s daughter being at the time board the
On October 20 following the defendants published
lengthy editorial on the subject, mountaineering very
strongly upoa Tue alagcm-ht Of tho RAD. upon
tue Conduct of . q man h0 g. emed to DO conductor"
and who used Insulting and shameful langua toward
Mrs Kennedy, Dir. Dwights daughter In reference to
some attempts made by her TO have the tram stupped
that might her father; an aiing further that
SUCH man was ntt-rl unfit for tho position no occu-
pied Tue defendants demurred 10 the complaint tn
ground substantially that II did not state facts sufficient
70 constitute OF action that the structures
justified by the circumstances that no nano was men,
toned. and that the privileged The
following Is the opinion OF Mr. Justice Clarke,
ruling the demurrer:-
The only question arising on tho demurrsrf IL whether
tho compliant contains uvermeut sufficiently certain
to enable jury to determine whether the alleged libel
was intended 10 apply TO the plaintiff No men.
TONED but the New Jersey Raj Tvad specifically
toned, It's management certain respects severely
demned and Is alleged that after the accident whc
hau DeIalen MT. dwight n man cauo into tho cars
where his daughter striving to get out to attend
upon her father; thai this man seemed TO DO .
duct0r and the toughest asked who checked
the engine; that turned 10 her and said. damn you,
do you mean to get oGY I'll 20 II you don't step
quick" that after question put By her hs went
cursiDg and ordering vi.
IL is clear that by this statement individual is
meant. No doubt the conduct of the company ID So
vereiy condsmned in preyi0 part OF the arcis but
some individual In their employ mont, who repre-
scented himself 10 be IN tier employment. 10 held up
also TOR public animadversior IL therefore, the
paint SO FREQ from ambiguity as that Jury cay
thai the ind vidual referred to 10 ths plaintiff think
the action can be maintained The company may have
their redress thcy been hbeled Their conductor
10 also entitled redress II he has boon ibelied-
II is well established that noelious matter
Ia charged against particular person, either
named, or who II 30 amb guousiy described that the
person csnnct be Identified without the aid of
trinsic Inctsin such case. BY the Introduction OF
proper avermants and colo2Him the words tacen 10
connection with the whole Tibet may be rendered SUI.
ncientiy ceran 10 support the action. will then DO
proper to permit the whole 10 the jury 10 de-
termtnc question OF fact, whether, by tne person
mentioned The ALLEGED libel, the plaintiff intended.
tsec Van veoten Vs. Hopk rs, s, r, 2lll In this
case rs have said, some PRISON accused OF improper
and indeed cruel neartess conduct; the jury must d.
eide whether that Individual Il or not the piainiin
Demurrer overrulcd, with costs. with liberty % the
defendant to aIswcr In twenty days, on payment 0 said
costa