Des Arc weekly citizen., 1867-11-16
Mercantile Agencies Inn ortant
 Decisions,

| Decisions.
 | The folloving decision, rendered h' Judge Nelson in the United States dis trict court of New York, strikes al th' root of mercantile agencies. and vii be likely to rcvolutionize the business | Under this decision, every man, who's, ci edit is injured by reports given ou- by merchantile agencies, may sue toi and recover damages:
 | JOHN BEARDsLEY & HORACE BEARDs LEY vs LEWIS TAPPAN.-rhis was motion for new trial on a bill Of ex ceptions. This case was commenceo in 1S49, and was for libel and sandei IS appears in the opinion. It was trie, in November 1851, before Judge Bet.. and Messrs. Cutting X Owen and Og den Hoffman being counsel for tn plaintiffs, and E. r. Butler for the dc .endant. The trial lasted over ior night. IL may be recollccted that au ing it Benjamin Douglas, the managiu agent of the defendant, refused 10 d vulge the name of the corresponden, 1 who had given the information, an was committed to prision for contemp of court and the trial went on withou, his testimony. It resulted in a verdic.
 tor the plaintiff oi Slo,0o0. The deiens dant moved for new trial, which mo ton was heard by Judge Nelson, H. November, lS14. The following is hi opinion denying the motion:
 NELSON, C. J.-Tnis was a suit againsl Tappan for libel and islander of tn, plaintiffs in respect to their credit as mercantile firm, carrying on business in Norwalk, Huran county, Ohio. lh defendant resided in New York, ant had established in that city mercan tile agency. the object of which was tc procure information Of the pecuniar, ability and standing Of merchants il the country for merchants in the city to be communicated to the latter in $ confidential manner. The defendant had some twenty clerks who participa ted in the business of the establishment and were, of course, privy to the in formation obtained, whether favorabie or unfavorablc, to the character all credit O. the county merchant ;and who participated in the communications the information to their customers o, customers clerks.
 The defendant communicated through his clerks to several customers and to their clerks facts seriously affecting tll' credit of the plaintiffs house; and th, main question in the case. on the mer- its, is whether or not he is exempt iron the consequences oi the publication, O.. the ground of its privileged character. The court charged the jury that if the defendant himself had communicated the information to a person applying to him for the papers in good faith, th, communication might have been a priv : ileYed one but that the publicity given to it by recording the libelous words il, book, to which others had access. an6 to whom they were communicated though standing in relation ot clerks deprived the communication Of its ott erwise privileged character. This is no doubt a very important question and involves in its practical operation whichever way it may be decided, in terests Of very great magnitude. O.. the ono hand, to legalize these cstah lishmcnts in the manner and to the eA tent used by the defendant is placin, one portion O the mercantile commu nifty under an organized system 0 espionage and inquisiiion for the ben fit of the other, exposed, rom the verl nature of the organization, to perver sion and abuse and. on the other. fo refuse to legalize them, may be resiriei ing injuriousy the right ot inquirIn. into the character and standing oi lhe customer asking for credit in his bu-i ness transactions. We are strongly in clined to think, if the establishments are to be upheld at all, the limitation attached to them by the court below i- not unreasonable. to wit, that it mus be an individual transaction, and no an establishment conducted by an ui,- limited number of partners and clerks The principle upon which privilegeo communication rest, which, of them selves, would otherwise be libelous imports confidence aud secresy be. tween individuals, and is inconsistent with the idea of communication mad, by society or congregation of per sons, or by a private company or cor. porate body.
 The other objections. in the case ar, technical in their character, not involv- ing the merits. We have looked into them and are of opinion they arc noi available to the defendant. New tria denied.
 For plaintiffs, Mir. Lord; for de.en. dants, Mir. Barker and Mr. O'Connor
 BEAUTIFUL AND IRUE.-ln an artic { in Fraziers Magazine, this brief but beautiful extract appears:
 Education does not commence witl the alphabet. It begins with mother, ] look-with n fnther's smile of anrroba.