Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-03-07

ceeded, the jury looked bored and
pleased by turns though they often
frowncd and drowsed, he quite as often
brought smile to their lips. But one
old " gentleman of the jury looked out
of an eye peculiarly hollow at what he
evidently considered the hollowEess of
the whole proceeding, and seemed not
half so well pleased as if he had paid for
an orchestra chair to the entertainment.
When Mr.. Yandenhoff said Mr.. Lie
cester favored her with knowing wink,
he looked at the jury and the court, and
the jury and the court looked sorrowfnl-
ly back again, but the /" wink was with
the reader. On he weat, but when he
read because you ha Mt got no stom-
ach, said the boy, contemptuOusly,
laugh went round which showed plainly
enough that other people had this indis-
pensible machinery and that it was long
after lunch time. Getting disgusted with
his work the reader began to utter the
words very rapidly, and the ehop-chop-
chop of the exercise shown that Mr.. Van
denhoff can read badly if he tries. At
% minutes to ? o'clock he had read
eight chapters, and rested for shOlt
time, bat after resumiRg even the pa
thetic capitals g love. Kate made no
impression upon the jury, nor could they
be reused when he read in a dramatic
manner how " their lips met, in spite of
all the difficulties, and grew together in
long and tender embrace, and so at 20
minutes past 2, having got through with
10 out of the 81 chapters, Mr.. Vanden-
hoff asked that as it was the longest
reading he had occasion to make, the
rest of the task might be deferred until
another day.
The defendants suggested that the jury
should be furnished each with a copy of
q Griffith Gaunt, that they might ae-
quaint themselves with its contents, and
that the expense be divided between the
parties but this was not agreed to, and
the jury were allowed to depart. Mr..
Whitney, on behalf of the defendants, as
a question of the order of proof, took the
ground that the authorship of g Griffith
Gaunt must be proved before the book
can be admitted in evidence. If Mr..
Reade was not the author, he could not
say that his professional reputation as
an author suffered by the criticisms. As
matter of fact, they intended to show
such plagiarism in the book as was in
furious to his professional reputation.
Mr.. Gerry, in reply, argued that the
authorship was in fact admitted by the
ambiguous form of denial of the innuen-
does of the complaint. The alleged
libels distinctly charge Charles Reade
with having printed an obscene book,
and now they come asking the court to
hold that they have not admitted his
authorship. The third libel charges
that Charles Reade could not have writ
ten it, because of its impurlty, and in
sinuates that he hired some one else to
write it. A more malicious stab could
not be intended, but the three libels
were each an independent ground of suit
Joined it is true in one suit, but still in-
dependent. But even if Mr.. Reade did
not write the book, the criticisms are no
less libelous, for they charge him with
being the author of Griffith Gaunt,'
and that it is an impure publication,
thus charging him inductiyely with
misdemeanor.
Mr.. Whitney replied that the original
complaint had a double aspect, one treat
ing the plaintiff as having suffered by
the hbels personally, and the other as
an autbor The court had mt him to
his election as to which of the two he
would sue on, and he had chosen to sue
for the injuries to him professionally.
In this view it was essential to prove
that he was the author Of the book.
The court reserved its decision till the
next meeting, on Monday next, at 10
a. III.