Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-11-15
THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT OF THE DIxrpycr ar
kkAL THRM-Chi5 Justice Carter presidino
1Wssooaate Justice. Ohm, W.die a.d EssAer--Mr
school, New York, ana an attorney of m g
New York bar, and H Clay Speak, a member
OF the Pennsylvania bar, were admtfted "a
practice before the Court Mr.. John r. Kelly,
steoent AT Jaw, made application to be admit.
teo, and asked for Committee. The Court an.
pointed Messrs Fendali. Foley and Phillips.
~, THE n'eHAN-cLErHANi LIBEL.
the nrst case for hearing was the case OF
McGhan vs.. Ciephane. JOSEPH ri Bradley.
r., for McGhan; Cook and Riddle for Ole.
pnane mr.. Cook opened for appellee. fol.
lowed c.ss d, BY Mr; Bradley for appellant. This
iron the decision of Judge DIN.
TINS f1an action on the case for libel. On
tne tIIAi Oh the cause, the plaintiff, to prove the
puoiication Of the libel BY the defendant, of.
the defendant, to which was appended pa.
per forming pert Of the deposition. proved by
me witness to be copy OF the libel. In order
10 lay the foundation for the Introduction of
this proof, he gave evidence to the court to
snow that the libel complained Of was a letter
written BY the defendant to Mr.. Stanton then
Secretary OF War; that he had caused q sub.
pena duees tecam to be served on Mr.. Stan ton,
who had appeared In open court in answer to
said subpoena. and filed q written paper, IN
which ne refused 70 produce the paper called
fusal; so that the orig libel could not be had
Thereupon the Court permitted the paper so
annexed to said deposition to be read in eyi.
dence, and the defendant excepted. The plain i.
TN says there is no error in said ruling,
because, ne says, the law is plaiulv settled
that in such cases, when the original is &C.
counted for, and its production cannot be
enforced, secondary evidence of its contents
may be given The question OF the loss of the
instrument, or OF the inability Of the party to
produce 1t, is always one for the Gcurt
Page vs. Page, Is PICK, 36S; IA How: 1874, 26f,
Riggs VS.. Tayloe; 9 Wheat, 4s3l The proof
contained IN this deposition was sum cient to
justify the Court in finding the existence of
the original paper, and the proceedings in the
cause showed 1t to beyond the reach Of the
to prove its contents was question properly
submitted to the jury. II Green, Ev., 3si,
The defence set mp is privileged communi.
cation, and certain questions were raised as
70 evidence to malice. There is NO error to
the injury Of the defendant in any one of the
rulings Of the Court contained in the numer.
Gus bills OF exception, including the charge to
the jury, OF which the defendant complains
1t Is thought the case OF White VS.. Mic hols
How. 266, covers all the grounds taken by
insse exceptions, which establishes these
I. Though q communication be privileged
II 1t be malicious, an action lies, bat the pl ain.
TIL must aver and satisfy the jury Of actual
malice.
2. tbs not necessary to set out In the decla-
ration the facts evidencing actual matice; bat it
Is sufficient 10 aver that the writing was
3. Want OF probable cause will authorize the
inference Of malice
4. A letter addressed to public officer con-
tanning charges against persons employed by
b m, or under his control. If raise and malici-
Gus, is actionable.
Justice Cartter.-The only question that ap-
pears 10 me is whether this parole whence OF.
fered IS the best that the nature of the case ad-
mtts of, for parole evidence can only be admit
ted when the paper is lost, destroyed, or in the
possession OF the adversary with notice. 1t is
the presumption of law thar the paper exists
and the 0aVS rests On you TO produce it, Now,
the only thing is, Is it or not privileged COM
municatiOn Ii IL is you can't give secondary
evidence of it, Ii not then you should have
proceeded by way OF attachment, to compelled
the paper to be brought into Court 70 get the
primary proof, inasmuch as the law did not
permit secondary proof when the best was in
existence.
Justice wyle remarked that in either case
the evidence gwen to the jury in this case
ought not 20 be given.
Chief Justice said it was for the plaintiff to
elect which position he would assume.
Justice Wylie.-There are two questi 1ns
Whether it is privileged question or q State
secret
Mr.. Cook This question of against public
policy was raised by the Government and not
Mr.. Riddle proceeded to argue that this was
Stale secret. and consequently privileged
comm unication, and from reasons CT public
policy no individual could bring them into
court The Government had decided this to
be a such, and with the Government alone
rested the right to make this decision.
The Court reserved its decision.
On motion OF Mr. Kennedy. the bond in cases
Of Neal VS.. Neal was increased to six thousand
dollars.
The court, at one O'clock took q recess
DENNIsON AGAINST THE CORPORATION OF
WASHINGTON.
On reassembiing, the case OF Chas s. Der.
nison vs.. Corporation of Washington was
taken up. Joseph H. Bradley, jr, for appel.
liant; Messrs. Davidge and Fendall for appel.
lee. This il Q case where appellee, during
darK night, fell over an excavation in a publ c
street, which the Corporation was bound to
keep in repair. by which he suffered a severe
injury, and sued the Corporation. The court
below gave Judgment which is now appealed
from. Argument still going on.