New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-11
LIBEL SUIT AGAINST TIE TRIBUNE.
FAuURp or THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH A


| FAILURE or THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH A
| CAsE--yERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
The case of j. Nelson Luckey agt. the Trb-
une Association for libel was tried at Poughkeepse on
Thursday aud Friday OF this the Supreme Court,
before the Hon A. B. Tappen and jury. Plaintiff
claimed $4,000 damages by Of report In The
TRIBUNE the 29th OF February, 1869. OF pro-
ceedings before T. 8. Commissioner Osborn 1t appears
from the evidence that this plaintiff charged with
completely in bounty frauds and the article In question
purported TO be report Of the proceedings then had
| The counsel for the plaintiff Homer A. Nelson
Secretary Of State, and exJudge Wheaton, for the de-
| PENDANT c. 4. Runkle, esq. aud Mr.. Thompson.
Samuel Sinclair publisher Of THE TRrBCNE, was called
witness for plaintiff In reference the circulation
OF THE TRIBUNE and as to the publication IN question
One two other witnesses called the cir
ouaOn ofthe belous article in tho County Of Duchess
and the prosecution then rested.
The evidence for the defense then entered upon
John a. Osborn IT, s. Commissioner IN the City OF New
York testified the character OF the proceedings had
before him, which formed the subject Of the alleged
libel and produced his minutes taken upon tho trial
He stated that Mr.. Luckey brought before him
under warrant on the 10Th day Of February, and held
10 bail in $500 for examination the oath that James
Brady. discharged soldier. testified that occasion
that he left his discharge with L. Brown Co. at No
Parkplace In September, 1866, and IN the following
Spring called AGAIN, ard was told that when they made
application for the bounty witness would be informed;
witness Hftcrward received note from the Paymaser,
saying thar Luckey had received the bounty called
L. Brown & Co tire same day, and saw Luckcyi asked
u
replied that he knew nothing about IT. That all the
cheeks he received were handed over to Brown witness
went back 10 Brown d Co, and was there informed
that lac would have TO call around and sec one Bliss The
Commissioner further testified that there was large
crowd OF In attendance, claiming that they had by
similar means been deauded OF their bounes and that
at the close o the examination by Of some defect
he suggested TO them that they might then make de-
naud upon Mr. LuCkey therefor; that number Of them
then made rush toward Luckey and demanded their
money, and that Luckey replied that he knew nothing
about II, and invited them 70 come to his Office
Joe c. PanghbOrn was the next witness, and stated
that q
that, according to his recollection, 10 true narration
could say positively whether there testimony
directly connecting Luckcy with Brown Co; witness
cOrrobOaed the statements OF the Commissioner IN ref
erence To the evidence taken.
A. Il. NewcOme, another witness testified that Spe
ca gent for the Second Auditor OF the Treasury De-
parment 1t became his duty TO arrest bounty sWluders
that he was present az the examination held by Commls
soncr OSBORN repeated the testimony OF Brady sub
stance al that time corroboratng the Commissioner in
had been made against Iucky for refusing to nay over
soldiers bountics that Brady stated that occasion
that no had called several times the firm Of Brown
Co for his bounty after leaving WIN them ms papers Tor
the claim aud that they had put him of with tho state
that at last he had been informed by tho De.
partment Washington that the claim had been paid 10
j. Nelson Luckey his authorized attorney. aud that
this was the hret time he Knew that MI Luckey had
been authorized To act his attorney that blank APP
hearing read he had signed it, together with
papers that he then Informed we're duplicates
Rnd TO that day he had not received the amount OF his
claim
James Brady the person tesying before Commissioner
Osborne, then called aud testified in reference 10
his statements that occasion ana As 10 the facts sub
santialy as related by the previous witnesses. -.
10 collect his additional bounty discharged soldier
that the claim had not been paid learned from the De
partment nj Washington that had been paid tn j. Mel
son Iuckey his authorized attorney. Tue application
OF The witness for bounty, with powcr of attorney
back OF IT, offered In evidence ana subsantiaed
together with similar paper III reference to the prey
Gus witness. Brady.
Richard Day testified TO a similar transaction with
Wiimor & Co, wherein he received like information
the Department after having his hopes defecdina
Ike manner
Edward L. stone and Samuel A. Rapp, a clerk in
the Paymaster Generals ONCE ana the other clerk IN
Auditors Office at Washington, identified the papers
offered evidence the applications OF the other wit
nes-es on file In their respective departments.
William Rousseau and Isaac NJ Lawrence testified that
they also entitled Ia additional bounty. bad de
posted their claim with the above mentioned claim
agents traced the payment OF their bOuntics To j.
Nelson Lucey attorney but had not been abe to Se
"A aymeut themselves.
Nicholas Thompson, sailor testified that he called on
plaintiff with claim for additional bounty. and plaintiff
had Informed him that tho claim would DO little over
took that hc subsequently learned that lie entitled
10 upward OF 600 aud that he had never SINCE received
a n rther sum from tine plaintiff on the claim.
j. Nelson Luckey plaintiff. then sworn in rebuttal
He said his connection WITH The hfn OF Brown q Co.. had
simply that OF banker that he had been employed
by them m few individual cases 70 forward applica,
tons to Washington and receive the checks FOR them and
Tor which Inc received g. 50 each; that beyond that
he had 40 other connection with the firm. Witness
denied al allegations OF cOmphcy with the lirIn OF
brown & Co. or any other individual firm, In any
fraudulent undertaking; stated that the Arrangement
between himself and witness Thompson that he
should ddra3ioc 500 that person. his bounty, and
when the whole sum came lac would pay the remainder
that upan 40 receiving the check from Washington
he had advertised for Thompson IN The soldiers Friend
for the purpose OF paying over 10 m put hau never
10 this day been able To nnd HIM.
After some further evidence the defense. the
was closed and Judge Iappen charged the jury rs fol-
lows:
GESrluylS Oh rHE JURY: In approaching the term
nation OF ms cnse on the second day OF It's trial. have
10 commend the attention you have bestowed upon H.
the desire you have manifested to know all the facts aud
n
lnentary and oral. aud 10 the comments and arguments
0f counsel with respect 10 tho counsel they have
zeaosy cndeavOred promote aud defend the interests
and rights several clients. The trial has not been
unnecessarily prolonged because D. Is one OF those cases
in which considerable time n usually required
The case Is now with you, under such views ana ~
strucions ~ You shall receive from Tie Court In ap
preaching the consideration OF the case you are not 10 ne
Influenced by tho consideration that one oil une
parties Is simply an Individual ana lhe olher y
an association owning public Ho"spapof,' e. 'f 1h
no. Ia the merits OF inc case WIN eseVt 10 .he
ease INTO four heads namely First. VIII refer 10 the
"nd 10 the question OF malice influencing the question
Of damages thirdly shall refer TO this particular pub
70 yoa the names II tho witnesses. aud re-
fer To the documentary evidence TINS VIII De
with respect To tho testimony, 50 that It VIII be more
readily within your recollection %nen GU CONF 10 ta
ins' mlS INN M an tmdIdual libel h, that which shall
unre or bucKen the reputation or expose lis subject TO
hc hatred contempt rdiculc, or charge an oheu,e
NV the direct effects Of tho publication per
soma! 10 the Individual charged. Lycry publication
roncerRlng a man ia respect 10 his business or
nroiessiou which is a necessary or approximate
i,ns. ~ damage or occasions peculiarly loss,
constitutes "a libel when ~ Is not true ana when ~
tends To iniure the person to who II refers lne iai
Ioge ia libel must Ice dcfanuolY, ana must
nc false libel held 10 be malicious where IL 10 Win
t sonable cause and II 10 held Ia be expressly
md dcsigueJy malicious where II II wholly false Inc
malice which generally implied becomes ia.t When ~
,nnears that tho publication has no truth 10
snpn1rt n Malice is to De taken IN consideration
~, lsruinng the damages which party may recover
M h raa arr implication Of malice may De- rctuted or
negaged by defendant In order to lessen tue aoaht
- Gana~es with respect the law touching the prlv
is ~ no snapers ii Is embodied In the Constitution or
IL A. Sc n I'm the Bl Of Echts. and Ia the Subse