New-York tribune., 1869-03-04
THE GRIFFITH G4UYr LIBEL SUIT

This trial was duly called at 10 o'clock, but
Mr. Richard Grant White not being on hand long dis
cussion was to whether tho whole OF the
number Of The containing the Prurent fruue
letter should should not come in with the letter. Inc
point was ultimately reserved gs....
Richard Henry Stoddard then called by tho defend
ants and testified had been an auhoror 20 years.
it was common for authors to employ colaborers
somemes only the Of placed on the title
mage sometimes that Of moro than one; whether tue
mpuaon of having employed coaborers and not placed
their name on the tepage, would be injurious to an
author would depend onhehatuTe OF the work In novel
writing he should rather say Il would not r.. "
Mr.. Henry Ledley, the present editor OF The Rorhd
Table was placed the stand, and testified that he
had been author for or eight years. had written
novels; knew that authors often employed assistance III
instances such an mputaon would hurt an auhor
such custom had been imputed to Mr. Dickens 10 hau
been told of this by genomen who had written some OF
the Christmas stories. r.1.l .l...
Mr. White not having yet arrived the dispute as to the
admission Of the number Of The Round Table containing
the Prurent,Prude letter. renewed and decided In
the affirmative. .....r .r.. ,.... l..-
Mr. White was thon recalled-Mrs, Woods general
reputation as BIZ author was that OF one writing
highly sensational works Objectionable more. per
haps on account of taste than moral witness neyor
heard her spoken Of author of obscene books;
witness knew little about her; he had read Griffith
aun and after reading II had given II to bis wife and
sS 70 any hi his name 10 book Of an inferior writer and
sell 1t as bic own; he had heard he thought Of one such
puIshed with her name and she reSeuted It quite
geticay such as has been stated would be- con
sdered as ecaDdalOus, and the charge would be like
charge OF forgery the authors reputation; tue injury
to the author in his relations with publishers such
the charges II the source were bgh one ann me clre
lation large the injury would be very great direct pc
cuniary injury IL would depend on the spirit IN which
such charge was written II Il appeared to be written
in fair spirit the injury w9nd S DC ,nry very Srea a ha p a
Mr.. White made an explanation that ne only meant
David Z. Lyme stated that his firm bad published an
One novel by Miss BTaddon had had large circulation
but ne did think large as this He had known OF
cross examined Witness had taken his copy from The
Atlantic Monthly. He had paid nothing forlt
October g. 1866 containing the "Pruent Prude" letter.
and the announcement OF the publication on that day OF
peared in The Heg. York World OF the Same day.
The defendants then rested,
Oct 49, 1885, headed An English Bully" in evidence
This closed the testimony on both sdes. Dir Whitney
fendants contendng that the question for the jury was
not Was this criticism just aud truei That was matter
which had called forth the criticism occasion for such
criticisms Such things might 10 an honest mind sug
gest such condemnation was here. Counsel reviewed
some length the book claiming that the book was not
really story Of Jealousy but OF Illicit love- checked be.
tue portion Of the book giving the intercourse be-
tween the young priest Leonard aud Kate Ghunt The
book he argued painted bgamy, and the bigamst was
shown to be happy man. not suffering under the panEs
OF conscience, bat 1oating IN happiness throughout
These things. no argued fully Justified the criti.
cisms. This book did paint vice In an enticng
FORM and honest critic especially, when asked by
the author publisher 10 creise IT, would condemn such
den0raliZng books. The third article made no charge
whatever against Mr.. Reade. II simply an inquiry
whether Mr. Reade hal written this book and the doubt
expressed In IL WAS honorable TO him. Tue doubt was
justified by the Of authors the motive ascrbed
bin for this qnasdeceit was most honorableto aid
novice The testimony was that the book was not Injured
by articles its sale enOrmOuA Counsel called
attention Prurent Prude letters and claimed that
its language fully justified the terms in which The
Round Table commented on ~ and was false aud base
attack the defendants The defendants were to-day
representatives OF the great principles which the
liberty of the press rests II the Jury believed the book
be immoral book then they wOnld Justify tho de-
feudans; but II the criticisms were not just s the Jury
would have 70 look 70 the intent with which they were
written, and th they whuld find, true and honest
the Prurent Prlde letter and It's attacks the coin
cdence OF IT'S publication with the issuing OF the book
gave a probability 10 an entirely different motYe-tbAt
VI advertising, aud calling attention 10 the book.
The Court here adjourned % 10 O'Clock Thursday,
when Mr.. Booth Will sun up the case for the plaintiff