, 1869-01-03
tfty suhsc7l1t7s can 1are TIE SUN.
DAT TRIBUNE del;pered By CARRIER on
tedetnc the order in our Coxnf;ng Room.
An APOLOGY FOE TIE JURY.

~H]~NN
Messrs John Lyle King and E. ".
AvAus publish card in the evening pA-
PER-, which amounts to An apology for
The jury In the Wilkinson libel suit, and
which is certainly very much needed.
Msssrs. King and Evans are the proper
persons to make 1t for them. These gen
usmen a'lege three things on behalf Of
the jury, viz:
l. ThAt TIE TRIBUNE put in plea OF
justification, md made thht plea "tbe
controlling and decisive one in the Case"
g That The pies of justification WAS
made In bad faith, and with no reasonable
t1oecta'ion Of proving i'll
3. That TIE TRIBUNE lad published
1e'rscaon Of the libel, and. therefore, It's
plea OF justification WIS untenable.
The first and second points made by
Mtssrs. King and Evans Offset each other.
They carnot both be true: 1t the plea OF
Justification Was made the controlling
and decisive one in The case, It could not
have been msde In bad faith and without
reasonable expectation Of proving II. The
thtr point Is qri5ble. TIE TRIBUNE
published Astatem mt On the day follow
ing the alleged libel to the ef1ec. that no
testimony had been offered 1t the Po-
lice Court eliminating Mrs. Wilkinson.
Did his cut Us of from showing that tes-
simory existed which had not been offer
eds The plain truth ia that we knew
ncthirg Of Mrs. Wilkinson that We had
used uncommon diligence In keeping the
police ittm out OF cur columns, hay:ng
eiven express and repeated orders to our
employer to keep it out, and that,
when it finally got into the
paper by an accident, We corrected
tie alleged libel 10 the extent that wc had
affirmed it-thas is, By saying that no
testimony had been offered in the Police
Court eliminating Mrs. Wilkinson. It
was still open TO rs 10 prove that such
testimony existed.
Ttessatemcnt Of Messr'. King and Evans
that the ples Of justification ws made in
tad faith and with no reasonable expec.
'atinn Of proving It, Is 1ebutted bT TIT
fAct that thty spent three days in endeav-
orirg to b1e.k the f1rce OF the testimony
which VIC did efier--;n croks-e1am' ninl
acd Safeguarding our witnesses. and Il
mixing the town over to ind other wit
rcsses who bad not setn the plaintiff il
such and spch circumstances at such and
such hours OF the night. No juror, ut
matter how stupid CT malicious, coul1
have supposed for moment that Tu1
TRIBUNE made its plea Of justification II
bsd iAish. On This point the Court IN.
etruc.ed the jnrF as :cliows:
The Jury are further instructed ihst, even
they should come 10 the Eoncinsion upo0 th
legs The rlea ot jpfstn :at,ua1A ep1ne,entig Ct
tap..theu. r.ll. II tfeJ reetc. from eueh testimt
IT, that t1f:&ef ndant fed said plea Of justttcs
ilor aEd tfec proof theterIdcr IN oood fdtti
truth eou3s pc srnsc1ectly proved, sh-n Tho nlin
psrn pics Of 5rs,,n alion md o1srtn9 prog
ttacunder ahou;d NOT b. ronHd<r&d 81 III ~
O. on ccq5upurtcn Of Gana2ts> hut au the eou
~ the jor5 believe teLds to establish the truth
tucn plea. snoul be considered by them tn m.
t2otion Of do.nogts."
Yet, In The teeth Of this instruction
(Which is in harmony with the lases
TusirRs oi the English Courts, ard aim ,!
identical IL language with thss OF It
Lc1d Chief Jukuee In the recent eue
Hunter e. shsipt,) the jury took Il
Tiew tha: the pies o. jusnflcsnoa WAS Z
sR9rAvation OF the l.b1t, and that it oall,
fer vindicaive dkmsges!
Srch verd C: is travesty and bu
1tsqrc Law anh just'ee,tendiug to bril-
trial by Jury into conxupt