The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-12

tenders OF tho existence OF Creator is that order
usiratiof OF this Is, that Il 4 mass OF type weTs
found IN confusion might Infer that this the
discover that the little pieces metal were arranged
90 % os the md o
she 6ehodeI would reject she theory OF chance snd
maiured desisn and intelligence =. ....,,.-.5
,Ihe commonwealth has, In order TO establish heI
Nr. Mann, and hat The defendant was actnated by
ness. lie has detailed 70 you which he
says he had With Tue detsodsnt 2me nfeen months
stated 20 this witness that could safely libel
& &fPshg9 an sE 6s sne % Ga h as
Rd Is oCfamnS o. O ts hs Hg 5C
An editorial Of the Sunday Mercury OF dnte Nov. 5,
1857 In which Mr.. Maun is distinctly named has also
been read TO you. tRead Nov. 9. 1867, and NOv.H
itis my duty to say 70 you that these advertise.
only to be considered byyou upon this question Of
9ssign end malice on h6s branch Of t9e case yoS
concur and such an article appear without ding
There ave SuthoFiiies which declare that defend.
ant Is snsweraoe 70 an Indictment for libel although
gepce Mr. Holt. In his standard treatise upon this
viii il Be Insisted that this Ignorance and ner,l-
justice sha being guilty Of crmes Ssn he shonS sS 5s
criminally answerable? II was In mis- power not TO
He exercises business Of danger and It Is 6ls dasS
sSRe 19S ne Ssch and 20 guard ths
has nboy in his shop totally Ignorant OF t6e qualify
would not such drussiss be Indeta5Is TO-. idI %isde
soesT as I woI % eVe1 ads H a1a % q
mischief may ensuS TO the public there is public
upon the matter and the breach or absence OF suOh
And MI: Justice story Tin Dexter VS.. Spear,
Mason, ll5) says
for for libel by pleading h1 e., Of the real oar
be Seons He bound mot to WroDT nothe =
whether pc sonally known or unknown 90 bim. In
ing thai ibe printer Old not know who were the par
ties ibeled that often aggrsvstes she malignty Of
malice, and indifference TO the peace OF the lnnO
EotwithstauSing these ruiIngs M have % been wiring
doubt which may arise upon conflict Of authority,
and have aSSTTdpgy& g & Sa@tsd the SgldeRce offered
your considerai lon:, 49,, -, .....
lIbelious-under the definitions have siven you
and that lt referred to Mr. Mann then it is my duty
by the defendant upon the imony Of M Graffen'
hand placed the manuscript upon the hook Tor the
compositors; This you VIII 5ememSer Is the aiie
his own hands sped & tbs i n%anuscsp. upon the high
prosecutorthen DEFENDANT cannot excuse his ACT
npon the plea that he did not read the paper.
acquitted he did write the article in ques.
H% II are seond uSs So1S ass
that the defendant published libel charged In the
Sd hand penned the T article - sns law whose
nSs Geen @ @ 20 you rn na % hs s case
defendant. The latter is de'epdlng himself from
II the past and much Of his hope IN the future The
be ffee." and that severy Citizen may fresiy speaF
wrte ana Print on any s1ol&eS & oenE responsible for
thus secured is not nnresraned license. '"'
General Hamilton, In Croswelps case (s Johns;
%The Liberty Of the press consists in the right to
Tor jgstsble e1ss whsthsr respects government
IS thst lSe fact The defendant The condSctor
especial privileges or claims to Indulgence. He has
snd me- has the sns pSSs Is.
n ruth but no light to Publish SshOOds to the Injury
In the light Of, these principles, gentlemen you
II you have reasonable doubt upon any material
In Of hs h Ss ySS %pst Sg give the 2
you are satisfied beyond all reasonable Doubt that
manner and form as he stands charged ny You sSouid ID
say yt So @ withCn. ,,s regard TO the SoSsequenees
Mr.. Clark counsel for the defendant. made motion
In arrest ofjudgment, and for trial. The Court
IKE M next pI sSiurday to to hear The argument
on % 6sil until Until the final diSposIt9n Of the case.
during the day. = ! D'---' ''-- ''-As
UNITED, STATES DISTRICT oouRr-Judre
Gadwalader.-The United states VS.. Ed ward Brock,
This was criminal prosecution. the Indictment con-
taining six Gounls:-st The conniviDg the execu-
syasS a. 10 or sy T6G6
Of pe%ovDg p@ Sq om sse for the
house siS stS PEocasing sbs S sSscatcn SrS 81
Il Tss Ssa that the
James Thompson TO execute this bond Or Msrcb S 9s
So he deenaant RneS ar m5er o and
'SS e ssSoSss % e %ssas
Government defrauded of large sum OF rnonevs
and this but OF series of such bonds that me
defendant had procured the execution Of which
dated back TO January, 1865 On trial O'Nelll and
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-Judges Anisoh
ana Perce-Fhe equity argument list No. was up
SUPREME COURT AT NIsI PRIUs-Judge shars.
woOd.-Willard and wife Hchaffer aud vile. An
aoLion TO damages for libel Verdict plain
Francis p. Mccoy. by his next friend, DauieI
Mccoy VS.. Samuel T. Bye, and Jacob r, Slater. An
the plaintiff small boy, through the alleged neglt
gence ofthe defendants. The allegation was that in
at Twentieth and Chesnut streets and neglected to
construct a proper scahold on which 10 work. and
other little boys. prick fell nom the building and
struck him on the head causing serious injury and
Baird vs. Smith ct al. Before reported verdIcr ret
plaintiff. SIS M IA te
I'm portant Question About national
Banks-They Can be Attached by a
state Process. gl.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YoRK.-Dec. 10
Pitt Cook against the Stzte Nationa Bank Boston,
this aJtachm menL was issued out OF the u-
pTeme Court the suit OF the plaintiff against the
National Bank of Boston, under prov sion OF the
code which provides that suits may be commenced
aeainst foreign corporations by Rttaohment when
& Q piantf IS a resident of the State ia which the
order Of arrest, and it was then argued-That NSs
tional Bank b ing financial agent OF aahe Govern.
nom a state couri; and that a Naiionai Baak was
not a "foreiga corporation" within the meaning OF the
JndEe ingTaham, before whom the case was arened
rendered decision this morning that the mere iact
financial agent OF the Govsrnmenti and tnat the
bank in question must be consldered foreign cor.
such Is liable 10 be attached. The order 10 Vacate