New-York tribune., 1868-03-19
rur BoNER.DEAY ELoPEMEYr.
TIE IIREI. suIr-yERDIcT FOR THE DEFENDANT
A. .ho onon;no of tbe BROOKLYN City Court


TIE LIBEL. sUIT--vEIDICT FOR THE DEFENDANr.
At the opening of the Brooklyn City Court
yesterday morning ex-Judge Reynolds auures,eu VI,
jury on behalf of the defendant IN TINS case .". "
that while the action appeared to be OF somewh1'
frivolous character and one which should never nave
been brought, yet it had been presented 10 tne jury ~
such inHammatory appeals in behalf OF phih'n, 'm"
became necessary for them TO try the case carei i
an ms ION e TOS IN gooS faith through the whole pro
ceeding and that he was in no way responsoe Ind
publication Of the article There was nothing that ceu
Tor the punishment Of defendant and therefore the ue
ton would resolve itself into what amount ol daaSe %
a slander against another, and dad 1t wifuy, IL was
wrong and the Court allowed them to mnct uaaages'
hut In the case OF the defendant 1t quite different
He neither did this wilfully nor malicousiy II was
usual when lbeous article appeared 70 ASK ue 9 q
w was I reparaton Of the oense The retraetOn went
into the same paper IN which the aSS Me into the
same families and all the reparaon that could be made
was made by defendant This article had appeared VIII
out the knowledge OF the defendant and therefore e
could have had malice in the matter lSounsel nets
read the original article As II appeared IN me sn anu anu
the letters Of correction which were subsequently pun
shed in the same paperI The probabilities, he con,
tnued. that some female had aa9pteu tne hao ~
Mrs Dean and presented herself at the charitable lhSI
tuition In Washington for assistance and protection he
claimed in conclusion that defendant hau SHOW Tsy @
MARY damages could, under the circumstances pe
claimed.
Gov Lowe in his argument behalf Of plaintiff, ap-
man as against man. and the sentiment OF equal
ity of all before the law In republican, government
he set forth the good character OF John Dean ana the
reputation OF his wife, argued negngenSe
of the defendant in allowing this publication 10 De lnaue
by hs night editor which he contended was, construct
ivey malice in the eye Of the law and Dy say
ing that the children Of this woman could suner Oy y
the Jury refusing stamp with their dsapprobaton the
conduct of the powerful press In dragging trougn s
sums of public slander for years the character Oh
their mother aud claimed heavy pecunlary aamases
from defendant warning to other newspaper propi
Judge Thompson charged the jury briefly, combining
himself to the law applicable TO libel which as NE b e
tried to make man ridiculous, and TO degrade nun 10
the OF oppCh Sbor SI in lnS SrnS or by
lures tending TO njure the memory OF one dead OF he
contempt and ridcule." The definition was applicable
10 this casef IL should reach that point IN the es.na
tio OF the urywhether the publication IN question was
malicious one expressed in printing tenalng 70 % IIgHic
the reputation OF one living ana expose her 70 Pupo
hatred and contempt The que %erS cen
stances under which 1t was published Hs Honor tcn
that if the article came within that definition of the law
| It would be necessary for the jury 10 eHainne Hshe
as TO the malice accompanying it, OF course tne inquest
degree OF malice in q lbeous publication. would be
where the person had inserted the DelWhen ne Knew ~
TO be false at the time OF it's publication ana desgnea
the expressions to iDjure another person Ihs "HHd
| In his opinion be an aggravatOh ol the nDIi'
Amounts given by the verdict OF Jury ID tne push-
inent OF libel might be variousfrom cents up to the
| amount claimed in the complaint, lie sad thdt tuc
n0%s' O These s matters had been commented upon
considerable length by the connsei VINO @ lau W
the Jury i'm the main to their argunens-sometlmes pos
slbly oversated-and call attention poiHtedly 10 the
facts the side or the other, whch tenued 10
vae or To malice II there were any In TINS
| publication. lie could scarcely call their attention 10
other facts without attempting review OF the
and he would ONLY say on the one side that if the nfor
| nation published we're derived from O respohsDle
source and that it in the line OF MS tdelehdah
business as manager OF public Journal 10 reproduce ~
these together with other matters were proper sueets
for the Jury consider in estimating the amount o
malice On the other side, circumstances were 10 Dt
considered affecting the residence and circumstances
| of the persons BY this he did not mean then
| wealth. but the former knowledge OF tne pam
| tiff by the defendant, 30 far as any was SHOWN u
! and whether not there was any hegieet ol
he part the publisher Of this article IN not lnqrg ~
to these facts before publication. Az the request VI
defendant could be held responsible for any damage
to plaintiff caused by the original pupcaon OF tne aIti
Gle in The VdShGfOn HiteCcnccF tnat III tne ucleuan
acted as a careful and prudent man should act IN h'
ual course business the verdict should De III IAO
of tho defendant that John Dean could not DC coisiu
Injured ne could and might bring action to procure
reparation OF that injury. and 10 would DC Voiaol
of law for the jury to include IN Uhelr .r vsr
dict cent as compensation or lhdelhuty
10 John this suit for anything that was sald
this article. That must be and may be the subject o
could not attribute express malice to panclpa Ior vi
act committed by an agent without MS hnowleuge "
authority and violation by agent oil his INSTRUCTION.
or his general charge conduct business properly
legally while IL might render the prihciIL
liable for damages il did not warrant the inference oi eA
press malice. =, - =. ,,,.o, 4,
At the conclusion Of the charge the case was gwen
the iury who retired and after an absence OF ABOUT
hours returned with verdict in favor Of defendant
The amount Of damages claimed by plaht was <'oVVC