New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-11

ing the lbelous matter the jury should consrne the
words contained in the article according ~, 70
article may be taken together for the purposes OF
construction where is part harmless and part Injurious
The question OF damage Is generally influenced py te
the article the from whence lt comes
and the spirit or intent with which II was puDseo or
which to be evidenced by lie publication An Tue
question Of damage Is which lie under all such CIR
cumsanoes the reasonable control of the jury ahu
is always the duty OF the Court, without intending 70
infringe upon the prcrogative OF the jury say that
In no case eshOuld unreasonable or excessive dAni
is also the duty Of the say where Is
clearly made out for plaintiff mere nominal damages
are sufficient compensation, ana that jurors shou
determine within reasonable bounds what is not the
proper limit OF verdict Having disposed Of tle nist
aud second branches OF the take up the particular
publication which Is tho subject OF the action, ~
IN susceptible Of being divided into TWO parts,
report 'n1 adicia R' procee9ine before United
states Commissioner Osborn in the Luckey case on tue
the reporter mingled with the article t appears IN e
column headed THE Courts IL was prepared by re-
Association he IN attendance reporter upon the
OCCASION and upon preparing the article, handed 1t to
Of their business, was transmitted to the de-
fendants 1t was competent for the reporter
report OF the proceedings-by fair and report
meant that not garbled IL does not require 20 be
Incorrect In order 10 protect the defendant The article
contains more than the report Of judicial proceed
pared it, and in this respect the second section Of the Act
Of 1864 applies and the act does not protect the publisher
to determine from the evidence how much or II Is TAR
and substantial report OF judicial proceeding and how
much of it consists of comments added by the reporter
So far AS IL is far and true report the publication IS
protected by the statute and far it consists vi com
mens by the reporter ii not protected by the statute
unless the defendant upon the trial proves the comments
be III fact The court here read the libel by para
graphs separating and distinguishing the report from
the comments. l VIII in conclusion briefly refer
to the testimony, simply for the purpose OF re-
freshing your memories as TO the witnesses sworn
and the documentary evidence it not be
that Jurors who take no notes can recoec for
day the exact course OF trial in respect 10 the
evidence In abiding 10 the testimony, shall give no
impression that may entertain with respect 10 the acs
Tho Court here briefly recaptuated the
testimony in the manner Indicated, ana
plaintiff and in respect these bounty claims that passed
through his hands any business he dd with the depart
mcns at Washington he did as the attorney OF the claim
ants-their powers OF attorney made him any busl-
he did with Brown u Co he did their banker.
He was therefore, two characters-One toward the
claimants toward Brown, WilmOt and others. III,
however, the evidence satisfies you OF the entire com.
plicy Of the plaintiff with Brown, Mlm0t aud others
touching the frauds practlCed upon bounty claimants,
then the charges IN the article and comments oI tho
reporter substantially made out and verdict must
follow for the defendants with respect to the acts OF
his Uhe plalnts clerks toward the claimants IOI DOu
ty he is not responsible for any criminal acts OF theirs II
there such, unless he had knowledge thereof If
the proofs do not make the plaintiffs completely with
honest men, then the plaintiff 10 entitled 10
verdict. And You may take in consideration
damages which you may award the plaintiff without
further OBTAINING you have simply TO remark that my
duty discharged 10 the the parties and the jury
and the result with YOU 1Ou VIII discuss ~ Win an
reasonable care and arrive at such conclusion as viii
enable you TO do justice between the parties aud IN ne
language OF your oath, true verdict give ACCORDING 10
the evidence.
The Jury retired and In about 10 minutes returned Win
u verdict for the defendants.
An allowance OF $3.50 was granted defendants, aud 80
days to plaintiff to make n case.