The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-05-23

The Law Of Libei-Ths Case Of Mr.. Nero
Against tho Herald.
We print in another column the judgment Of
the Supreme Court General Term, and the
points Of counsel in the suit brought against rs
by Mr.. More, for an alleged libel published
in the HHRALD. The expression to which ex-
ception was taken formed part Of letter from
Mrs. Kmball, the widow Of Major KimbaI.
Referring in this letter to certain articles IS in
the possession Of "prostitute," she further said
that she understood this person to be 'under
the patronage or protection Of Mr.. More,
agent Of the Central Railroad" Mr.. More's
counsel alleged that these words intended to
charge and did charge him with having under
his patronage or protection prostitute"
The case was first heard before Judge Bar
nard, at the Circuit Court II was submitted
by our counsel that, accepting even the plain
tiffs own Interpretation Of the words, there was
no libel because there was no suggestion that
the protection was improper or immoral that
the protection of prostitute might be, under
some circumstances, highly benevolent and
praiseworthy; that the words being thus at
least ambiguous il was sound rule, part Of
the broad morality Of the law, that when words
are susceptible Of two interpretations, one bad,
the other good, it must be assumed they were
intended in the better sense. Our counsel
claimed that the Court was bound to presume
that if Mr.. More had such associations they must
be for proper and moral purposes, was, in fact
bound to suppose better of that gentleman
than his lawyers did when they advised him
that our publication was libel. Judge Bar
nard held that these points were well taken;
that the plaintiff had no case and dismissed
his suit refusing him leave to amend his COM
plant The plaintiff then appealed for new
trial at the Special Term, before Judge Foster,
a legal light from the Western part of the
State, who granted the appeal.
Against this decision we carried the case
to the General Term, before Judges Leonard,
Clerke and Sutherland Here the ruling of
Judge Barnard was autboritatively approved,
and it was clearly laid down that only words
that tend to njure can be alleged az lbellous,
and that their actionable nature as libel can
not be sustained unless it is shown that they
were uttered or printed with malicious intent
Thus Mr.. More's case lost both its feet No
malice could be shown, and the words did not
necessarily tend to injure, since they were
susceptible of an innocent Interpretation.
Weak as the plaintiffs case was, it was made
worse by his lawyers, who had omitted from
the complaint such specification of the way
in which the words printed might have been
an injury IS would, perhaps, have made mat
ter of fact for a jury to decide. Judge Leonard
also administered quiet rebuke to Judge
Foster, whose assumption of better know
ledge. of the law had overraied at Special
Term the decision Of the Circuit Court.
This Judgment throws some clear light on
the important point Of suits against newspa-
pers for libel. Such suits were at one time
the great staple Of the Tombs lawyers These
fellows used to hunt through the journals for
any mention of a mans name, and rush to
him with an offer TO undertake the case and
accept part Of the damages as their fee. Forti-
fed by some crude notions on the part
of the public, such as the greater the truth
the greater the libel, these fellows found
many victims. Often they had certain
encouragement from the journals; for many
would settle by paying q certain sum rather
than suffer the annoyance Of suit. Thus the
terror Of the law became common means Of
extortion. Many actions were brought against
the HERALD in that way, and the game was not
stopped until it became fully known among
the small lawyers that we would carry cases
up to full legal determination, and would
rather spend ten thousand dollars in the courts
than to settle for ten cents.
No one decision, Of course, could determine
the infinite points that might arise under the
law of libel; but this case determines dis
tinctly some of the very important ones.
First, it shows that everything is not libellous
that men may so deem or consider themselves
libelled by, the law regarding that mems lives
are as pure as they ought to be, which some
times perhaps, is purer than they are. Second,
that for any libel there must be concurrence
Of malicious intent and an injurious ten
dency, either apparent in the words or shown
by evidence.
German Observation-Disclosures stiii In Its
WAY.
The consolidation of North Germany is not
yet complete; nor, il we are to judge from
our recent cable and mail intelligence, are the
difficulties in its way diminishing. cable